Opinion ID: 2642366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attribution of 2 Additional Kilograms

Text: Although Anin never bought or sold the two kilograms at issue in the May 24, 2010 uncompleted transaction, the District Court reasoned that Anin was responsible as an accomplice under §1B1.3 of the sentencing guidelines. In a case involving “jointly undertaken criminal activity,” §1B1.3 requires a sentencing court to consider “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). Thus, §1B1.3 “directs the sentencing court to include in the base offense level certain amounts in addition to those amounts the 8 defendant was convicted of distributing,” including “amounts of drugs possessed, distributed, manufactured, sold, or otherwise ‘handled’ by persons other than the defendant . . . within the scope and in furtherance of the activity the defendant agreed to undertake.” United States v. Collado, 975 F.2d 985, 990-91, 995 (3d Cir. 1992). As the District Court found, Anin was an active member of his source’s operation on May 24, 2010. His source, through a courier, brought two kilograms of heroin to Pittsburgh for further distribution. While there is no evidence that the source ever sold that heroin, the courier’s mere possession of it was a foreseeable result of Anin’s efforts, and easily falls within the scope of, and occurred in furtherance of, the criminal activity Anin agreed to undertake: Anin’s role in the conspiracy was to link the source to a local Pittsburgh dealer, and Anin had already spoken to the source about purchasing the very drugs the courier brought to Pittsburgh. Thus, although the evidence does not support the District Court’s finding that the source delivered the two kilograms in question, A19, it more than adequately supports the factual determination that Anin was a member of his source’s network and therefore responsible as an accomplice for the source’s conduct regarding the two kilograms at issue. 1 1 We also note that attribution of the 2 kilograms is a straightforward application of note 5 to § 2D1.1, which provides: In an offense involving an agreement to sell a controlled substance, the agreed-upon quantity of the controlled substance shall be used to determine the offense level unless the sale is completed and the amount delivered more accurately reflects the scale of the offense. 9