Opinion ID: 2799911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Incorrect Offense Level3

Text: Hill next argues that the District Court incorrectly calculated his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. Again, he is mistaken. The District Court calculated Hill’s base offense level using the quantity of crack the enterprise was distributing during the time period when Hill was part of the enterprise and not incarcerated. The Court concluded that the entire weekly quantity of crack that the Harlem Boys distributed was attributable to Hill – some 4.5 ounces – but only for the weeks when he was participating in the enterprise – some 197 weeks. The District Court 3 We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines and review its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Smith, 751 F.3d 107, 118 (3d Cir. 2014). 4 calculated that quantity to be more than 24 kilograms, which was the quantity used to determine the offense level of 38. That conclusion depended upon the premise that Hill was not merely a street-level dealer for the enterprise but rather was an active and substantial participant in its operations and thus responsible for more of the crack than he was personally dealing. We cannot see any error, let alone clear error, in that factual finding. See United States v. Smith, 751 F.3d 107, 118 (3d Cir. 2014) (factual findings at sentencing are reviewed for clear error). Based on that finding, the District Court could attribute to Hill the entire quantity of drugs that it was reasonably foreseeable the enterprise would sell. United States v. Collado, 975 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1992) (“[W]hether a particular defendant may be held accountable for amounts of drugs involved in transactions conducted by a co-conspirator depends upon the degree of the defendant’s involvement in the conspiracy and, of course, reasonable foreseeability with respect to the conduct of others within the conspiracy.”).