Opinion ID: 1033503
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: August 5, 2011 Controlled Purchase

Text: 3 Case: 12-15812 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 4 of 22 Five weeks later, on August 5, 2011, the third controlled purchase occurred. Again, CI Brown drove to defendant Bodison’s house. There, he found Bodison sitting in the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked in the driveway. Brown approached the vehicle and, through the window, saw what he later described as “a pistol” lying on the passenger’s seat. Defendant Bodison agreed to sell Brown a “half circle” of crack cocaine and 20 MDMA tablets. Bodison exited the vehicle, walked to a nearby wood line and removed drugs from a paper bag lying on the ground. Bodison then reentered his vehicle. At that time, Brown leaned into the vehicle and paid Bodison $460 for the drugs. 2 F. Motion for Acquittal, Verdict, and Motion for a New Trial After the government rested its case, Bodison moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts. The district court denied the motion as to the three substantive drug charges in Counts 2, 3, and 4, and reserved ruling as to the conspiracy charge in Count 1. The jury found Bodison guilty on all four counts. The jury found that the Count 4 offense (based on the August 5, 2011 controlled purchase) involved crack cocaine but did not involve MDMA. 2 At trial, a forensic chemist who analyzed the drugs acquired during the August 5, 2011 controlled purchase stated that defendant Bodison had actually sold Brown a quantity of 5- methoxy-N, N-diisopropyltryptamine, in addition to crack cocaine. The chemist testified that this drug resembled, but was different from, MDMA. 4 Case: 12-15812 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 5 of 22 Defendant Bodison moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(2). Bodison argued that the government’s background evidence about Operation Woodchop violated Rules 404(b) and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and that the admission of this evidence had prevented him from receiving a fair trial. The district court granted defendant Bodison’s pending motion for acquittal as to the conspiracy count, finding that there was no evidence that Bodison and Mobley had formed an agreement to distribute drugs to CI Brown. The district court denied the motion for a new trial, determining that the Operation Woodchop evidence did not run afoul of Rule 404(b). Even if it did, the district court concluded that the evidence did not substantially influence the jury’s verdict, and, therefore, any error in admitting it was harmless. G. Presentence Investigation Report According to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”), Bodison was responsible for 27 grams of crack cocaine and 5.15 grams of MDMA and BZP, which resulted in a base offense level of 24 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(8). The PSI applied a 2-level increase under § 2D1.1(b)(1) because Bodison possessed a firearm in connection with his offense, leading to an adjusted offense level of 26. The PSI classified Bodison as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 due to his prior 2005 conviction for fleeing or attempting elude, and his 2007 5 Case: 12-15812 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 6 of 22 conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, which resulted in a total offense level of 34. Although Bodison’s criminal record originally warranted a criminal history category of IV, his career offender designation automatically placed him into a criminal history category of VI, yielding a guidelines range of 262 to 327 months in prison. Bodison filed written objections to the PSI, challenging, inter alia, (1) the two-level increase for possessing a firearm, and (2) his designation as a career offender. Bodison argued that he never possessed a firearm, was not charged with possessing a firearm, was never seen holding or carrying a firearm, and that no firearm was ever recovered from him. Bodison asserted that CI Brown made only a “vague reference to a firearm being on the seat of the car,” and that Brown may have seen something only resembling a firearm, such as a toy or a BB gun. As to the career offender designation, Bodison argued that his 2005 conviction for fleeing or eluding was not a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines, and that the 2007 drug conviction could not be authenticated. H. Sentencing At the sentencing hearing, defendant Bodison reiterated his objection to the firearm increase, contending that (1) the only evidence of a gun was CI Brown’s statement about seeing a pistol on the seat of Bodison’s car; (2) the pistol Brown saw may not have been a real gun; and (3) Brown was not credible because he had 6 Case: 12-15812 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 7 of 22 denied using or selling drugs at trial, and yet belonged to a drug gang. Bodison also reiterated his objection to the career-offender designation. The district court overruled Bodison’s objection to the firearm increase, finding that the government proved his possession of a firearm by a preponderance of the evidence. The district court sustained Bodison’s objection to the career offender designation, concluding that there was insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether his prior conviction for fleeing or eluding qualified as a crime of violence. Given these rulings, the district court set Bodison’s offense level at 26 and placed him into a criminal history category of IV (as calculated by the PSI before the career offender designation), which yielded an advisory guidelines range of 92 to 115 months’ imprisonment. The district court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 100 months on each of Counts 2, 3, and 4, to run concurrently, and a total 6-year term of supervised release. The district court explained that a 100-month total sentence was appropriate in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and noted that it would have imposed the same sentence even if Bodison was classified as a career offender. Bodison timely appealed his convictions and sentences. 7 Case: 12-15812 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 8 of 22