Opinion ID: 792744
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hankton's Double Counting Claim

Text: 45 Hankton also claims that the district court erroneously double counted when imposing his sentencing enhancements because the court considered his leadership within the MCs street gang both to enhance his sentence for finding him responsible for distributing more than 500 grams of cocaine, under § 2D1.1, and for being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity, under § 3B1.1. We disagree. 46 Improper and impermissible double counting only occurs when a district court imposes two or more upward adjustments within the guideline range, when both are premised on the same conduct. U.S. v. Haines, 32 F.3d 290, 293 (7th Cir.1994) (emphasis in original). Put simply, a district court may not characterize the same conduct in two different ways to arrive at two separate sentence enhancements that result in an upward adjustment of the sentencing range. See United States v. Schmeilski, 408 F.3d 917, 919 (7th Cir.2005). Also, although premising multiple enhancements on `identical facts' constitutes impermissible double counting . . . the presence of some overlap in the factual basis for two or more upward adjustments does not automatically qualify as double counting. Id. (internal citations omitted); (citing United States v. Parolin, 239 F.3d 922, 929 (7th Cir.2001)). Where different aspects or components of the defendant's behavior are addressed by different enhancements, improper double counting has not occurred. See id. We review the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See, e.g., United States v. Von Loh, 417 F.3d 710, 712 (7th Cir.2005). 47 Hankton's claim of impermissible double counting finds no support in the record, much less the voluminous amount of case law on this subject. The disparate nature of behavior addressed under each enhancement, without more, suggests that impermissible double counting pursuant to those particular enhancements would be most unlikely. See United States v. Schmeilski, 408 F.3d 917, 920 (7th Cir.2005). In fact, §§ 2D1.1 and 3B1.1(a) are premised on entirely different conduct; for while an individual may be found to have distributed a certain quantity of drugs making him eligible for a sentence enhancement under § 2D1.1, he need not be a leader or organizer of a criminal activity, as described by § 3B1.1, to do so. Nonetheless, Hankton argues that the sentencing judge's mention of his leadership role in the organization while finding that he was also eligible for a sentence enhancement for distributing more than 500 grams of cocaine under § 2D1.1 constituted impermissible double counting. Nothing could be further from the truth. 48 When determining the drug quantity attributable to Hankton pursuant to § 2D1.1 the judge specifically found that, considering the admissions of the defendant in the plea agreement as well as the evidence concerning the intercepted phone conversations, Hankton was responsible for distributing well beyond . . . 500 gram[s] of crack. It is true that later in the same monologue the judge mentions the position Hankton occupied to illustrate the point that the actual amount attributable to him could reach even beyond 1.5 kilograms. It is clear from those statements, however, that without taking Hankton's leadership role in the offense into consideration, the judge determined that the sentencing enhancement should apply, making any other drug amounts attributable to Hankton via his leadership role superfluous. 29 Said differently, the judge concluded that Hankton was personally responsible for distributing well beyond . . . 500 gram[s] of crack cocaine, which justified the enhancement of his sentence under § 2D1.1. Accordingly, consideration of any additional amounts attributable to him via his leadership role in the MCs was superfluous. 30 49 Thus, since § 2D1.1 and § 3B1.1 address different conduct and because the trial judge did not rely on Hankton's leadership role in the MCs to enhance his sentence pursuant to § 2D1.1, there was no improper double counting and Hankton's claim fails in this regard.