Opinion ID: 598526
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: inclusion of one kilogram of cocaine in base level

Text: 17 The district court must determine the base offense level by a preponderance of evidence. United States v. Carroll, 893 F.2d 1502 (6th Cir.1990). We are restricted in our review of guideline cases to a clearly erroneous review of the facts and must also give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to those facts. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). 18 Application note 1 to § 2D1.4, United States Sentencing Guidelines (1991) 4 explains that 19 where the court finds that the defendant did not intend to produce and was not reasonably capable of producing the negotiated amount, the court shall exclude from the guideline calculation the amount that it finds the defendant did not intend to produce and was not reasonably capable of producing. 20 We have held that the district court shall not conclude that a conspirator is responsible for estimated drug quantities unless the court can conclude the defendant is more likely than not actually responsible for a quantity greater than or equal to the quantity for which the defendant is being held responsible. United States v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289, 1302 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 532 (1990). We have warned that a district court should err on the side of caution and not on the side of excessive sentences. Id. We, however, have determined that the amount of the drug being negotiated, even in an uncompleted distribution, shall be used to determine the base level. United States v. Perez, 871 F.2d 45, 48 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 910 (1989). 21 Recently, we have held that once the government satisfies the burden in establishing a negotiated amount, then the burden shifts to the defendants to prove that they were not capable of producing that amount. 5 See United States v. Christian, 942 F.2d 363 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 905 (1992). The government has satisfied its burden. 22 The defendants argue that they were not capable of producing a kilogram because no one would front their purchase of a large amount of cocaine. Defendant Nelson failed to present any convincing evidence to satisfy the district judge that he had carried his burden to prove that he was not capable of producing or acquiring one kilogram of cocaine. The district court so held in its decision concluding that the problem did not arise until Rowser was arrested at the airport with six kilograms. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not err in its finding that Nelson should be responsible for the negotiated amount of one kilogram because he was reasonably capable of delivering one kilogram of cocaine and intended to acquire or produce it. 23 At the time of the presentence report submitted in this case, Davis was reflected to be a twenty-one year old Jamaican, a transient subject to an immigration detainer with a speech impediment. He had worked as a laborer and also delivered cocaine for Nelson. He had, in late 1990, suffered a serious gunshot wound which he claimed was accidental but had, nevertheless, incurred a large medical bill for treatment of the wound. The probation officer concluded that David had no assets and no ability to pay any fine within the guideline range, noting his limited future earnings potential. He was a drug user but noted no problems from his use. We have serious reservations about Davis' ability to fund a kilo of cocaine, but he was charged with conspiracy in assisting Nelson in a cocaine distribution scheme involving acquisition of this quantity. Were the charge only against Davis for the substantive drug offense set out in count one, we would agree with Davis' contention that he could not produce the necessary funds for such a quantity of drugs. 24 The problem is, therefore, more difficult with respect to defendant Davis who claims to be merely a delivery boy. After reviewing the presentence report and the objections made thereto, this court, although it may question the propriety of Davis' sentence, cannot find it to be clearly erroneous. 6 25