Opinion ID: 3061858
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Cartwright’s Testimony

Text: Cartwright testified that on more than ten occasions from June 1995 to April 1996, he transported between $400,000 and $1 million in drug proceeds to the Bahamas for Knowles via private chartered airplane or boat. In a recorded conversation that took place 24 July 2000, Knowles instructed Cartwright to see Riley, who gave Cartwright a black duffle bag containing money.16 Cartwright dropped the money off at his home and then left in his car. Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) agents stopped Cartwright and questioned him. Cartwright subsequently consented to a search of his vehicle and his home, resulting in the agents’ discovery of the drug money, which Cartwright had stored in boxes in his living room. Agents also confiscated the black duffle bag, which was located on the back porch area of Cartwright’s home. In total, agents seized over $2.5 million. In a series of recorded conversations, Knowles 16 Prior to Cartwright’s testimony regarding his 2000 drug-trafficking activities and publication of the recorded telephone calls from 2000 to the jury, the court stated on the record its finding that the probative value of this Rule 404(b) evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on Knowles’ defense. 25 was overheard telling Cartwright to file a lawsuit to recover the money and to misrepresent that the sums seized were legitimate business profits. At the conclusion of the government’s case-in-chief, Knowles moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the court denied. Knowles did not present any witnesses, but merely read to the jury a stipulation that none of the government’s witnesses had appeared before a grand jury in Case 425. On 5 March 2008, the jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts of the indictment. The jury also returned a special forfeiture verdict against Knowles in the amount $13.9 million. Prior to sentencing, the probation office prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSI”), in which the probation officer assigned Knowles a base offense level of 38, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (Nov. 1, 2007).17 The probation officer applied a four-level increase after determining that Knowles “was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). With a total offense level of 42 and a criminal history category of I, Knowles’ advisory guidelines range was 360 months to life imprisonment.18 17 The probation officer converted the amounts of cocaine and marijuana involved in the offenses into their combined marijuana equivalent, which was 709,248 kilograms of marijuana. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (providing for a base offense level of 38 where defendant is convicted of an offense involving 30,000 kilograms or more of marijuana). 18 Both counts carried with them a minimum term of ten years’ imprisonment and a maximum term of life imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 960(b)(1)(B) and 841(b)(1)(A). 26 The district court overruled Knowles’ objection to the § 3B1.1(a) enhancement, finding that Knowles was an organizer or leader of a criminal conspiracy involving five or more participants. Knowles then requested that the court impose a 360-month sentence, arguing that a life sentence was too extreme given the lack of evidence that violence was involved in the offenses for which he was convicted. He argued additionally that his advanced age and poor health rendered a 360-month sentence, rather than life imprisonment, appropriate. After stating that it had considered the parties’ arguments, the advisory guidelines, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) factors, the district court found “that a sentence at the lower end of the advisory guideline range [was] sufficient to adequately punish the defendant for his crimes and de[t]er future criminal conduct.” R18 at 22-23. The court then sentenced Knowles to concurrent terms of 420 months’ imprisonment for Counts One and Two, to be followed by concurrent terms of five years of supervised release. Knowles stated that he had no objections regarding the court’s “finding of fact” or “the manner in which sentence was pronounced,” other than those which he had already stated. This appeal followed.