Opinion ID: 710067
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The District Court's Compliance with Sec. 1B1.3

Text: 81 Under the aggregation rule embodied in Sec. 1B1.3 of the Guidelines, a court must consider relevant conduct when it calculates a base offense level. In other words, the court must consider all drug quantities that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction, even though the defendant was never charged in connection with those particular drug transactions. Relevant conduct includes all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of ... jointly undertaken criminal activity. U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Thus, [a] district[ ] court may correctly aggregate all the quantities of drugs involved in an entire, basic scheme of multiple defendants when it determines an individual defendant's base offense level. Mumford, 25 F.3d at 465. 82 The appellants argue that the court failed to explain how the relevant conduct (i.e., the numerous acts of drug-trafficking by the Taylor conspiracy) and the offense of conviction (the possession or attempted possession with intent to distribute of approximately 100 grams of cocaine on February 13, 1993) were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan. 83 The Government side-steps this issue, focusing instead on the fact that the appellants got better deals under their respective plea agreements than they ever would have received if convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, which carries a ten-year minimum sentence (Count I of the indictment against them). While this is undoubtedly true, it does not address the district court's failure to state explicitly its finding that the relevant conduct and the offense of conviction were part of a common scheme or plan or the same course of conduct. 84 The commentary accompanying the Guidelines explains that common scheme or plan and same course of conduct are two closely related concepts. Two or more offenses are part of a common scheme or plan if they are substantially connected to each other by at least one common factor, such as common victims, common accomplices, common purpose, or similar modus operandi.  Offenses are part of the same course of conduct if they are sufficiently connected or related to each other as to warrant the conclusion that they are part of a single episode, spree, or ongoing series of offenses. Factors indicating that two or more offenses are part of the same course of conduct include the degree of similarity of the offenses, the regularity (repetitions) of the offenses, and the time interval between the offenses. U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.3(a). See also Cedano-Rojas, 999 F.2d at 1180 (factors include similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity of the incidents in question); United States v. Hatchett, 31 F.3d 1411, 1419 (7th Cir.1994) (factors include similarity of parties, geographic relationship, temporal relationship, and any other relationship between the convicted offense and the relevant conduct). 85 We agree with the appellants that the district court should have been more explicit about the relationship between the relevant conduct and the offense of conviction in this case. When a court aggregates drug quantities under the same course of conduct or aggregation rule, we have held that it should explicitly state and support its finding that the drug amounts considered as part of the same course of conduct bore the necessary relation to the convicted offense. Duarte, 950 F.2d at 1263. However, in light of the totality of the evidence in this record, and the sentencing judge's careful review of the same, we believe that it would be pointless for this court to remand or vacate the sentences of Demski, Pryne, and Gary Taylor simply because the judge failed to make explicit, by invoking the magic words of the Sentencing Guidelines, that the offense of conviction was part of a common scheme or plan or an ongoing course of conduct. See United States v. Thomas, 969 F.2d 352, 355 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 896, 113 S.Ct. 274, 121 L.Ed.2d 202 (1992) (facts in PSR justified upholding the district court's relevant conduct finding despite its failure to provide an adequate discussion of the issue); Coonce, 961 F.2d at 1278 (although explicit findings are generally required in sentencing, there are no 'magic words' a court must use). It seems most obvious that the offense of conviction was part of a larger, ongoing operation. 86 The record amply supports a conclusion that the relevant conduct in this case bore the necessary relationship to the offense of conviction. The incidents of drug-dealing that comprised the Taylor conspiracy were not isolated events. Rather, they were very similar, occurred at regular intervals, and took place within a comparatively short time frame (Spring 1992 through February 1993). These incidents also involved many of the same individuals (at least in the key roles) and reflected the same basic modus operandi. In short, the information in the PSI report ... adopted by the court demonstrates a temporal and locational relationship among the drug [transactions] in question, and supports the district court's finding of relevant conduct. Id. 87 Although the district court never used the magic words of the Sentencing Guidelines, it did orally state and memorialize in writing that the drug quantity calculations prepared by the probation office had take[n] into account all of the defendant[s'] relevant conduct. The court also repeatedly referred to the defendants' participation in an ongoing conspiracy to distribute drugs, which is another way of saying that the individual acts of drug-dealing, including the offense of conviction, were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan. The court, in its opinion, even set forth in specific language that the conspiracy continued through (and encompassed) the February 12-13, 1993 transaction that constituted the offense of conviction, citing the telephone conversation between Stacey Lecas and Catherine Demski as evidence of this. 88 We see no reason to disturb the sentences in this case merely because the judge failed to invoke the exact wording of the Guidelines with respect to relevant conduct. It was very clear throughout the proceedings that the court deemed all of the Taylor conspiracy's drug-trafficking activity relevant conduct. Indeed, the appellants did not challenge this notion during the proceedings except to argue that the relevant conduct was shorter in duration and involved smaller amounts of drugs. 89