Opinion ID: 2978565
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cocaine Powder Calculation

Text: Fenderson next argues that the district court erroneously included two kilograms of cocaine powder in its relevant conduct calculation. This Court finds no merit in Fenderson’s argument. Generally, a defendant involved in a drug conspiracy is responsible for the drug quantities for which he is directly involved and any quantity that is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy. United States v. Cobbs, 233 F. App’x 524, 544 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220, 246 (6th Cir. 2006)). See also U.S. v. Campbell, 279 F.3d 392, 400 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting that the district court must make “particularized findings” regarding the scope of the conspiracy and the foreseeability of the conduct). Under that standard, this Court cannot find clear error as to the factual determinations in the district court’s decision to include the two kilograms of cocaine powder at issue. It is undisputed that Anthony Bell, a co-conspirator, had two kilograms of cocaine powder in his vehicle on a day when he picked up Fenderson. While Bell was driving the vehicle, Fenderson alerted him that they were being followed by the police. Bell took evasive action and tossed the two kilograms of cocaine powder from the vehicle once police were no longer in sight. Thereafter, Bell -4- No. 07-4482 United States v. Fenderson attempted to convince Fenderson to return with him to search for the cocaine. Fenderson refused, and Bell eventually went searching for the cocaine without Fenderson. Bell’s testimony makes clear that Fenderson had no actual knowledge of the drugs prior to entering the vehicle. These latter two facts are the focal point of Fenderson’s argument. Fenderson’s argument ignores the fact that he need not have actual knowledge of the cocaine powder for it to be included in his relevant conduct. Rather, the appropriate question to pose is whether it was reasonably foreseeable to Fenderson that Bell would possess the drugs with an intent to distribute them. The record makes its readily apparent that it was foreseeable that Bell would possess cocaine powder with an intent to distribute. This Court, therefore, rejects Fenderson’s argument. First, Bell’s testimony makes clear that he routinely purchased large quantities of drugs from Fenderson. Further, Bell sometimes purchased drugs from Fenderson’s co-conspirator, Dedrick Richardson. It is also clear that on some occasions, Fenderson “fronted” drugs for Bell, not requiring him to pay the full amount at the time of purchase, but rather allowing him to pay after selling the drugs. These facts demonstrate that it was reasonably foreseeable to Fenderson that Bell would have drugs in his possession in Fenderson’s presence. Finally, while Fenderson refused to search for the drugs, he admittedly did not withdraw from the conspiracy at that point. Rather, he made a calculated decision that the risk of being arrested while searching at that time was too great. His refusal to search for the drugs, therefore, does not aid his argument. This Court finds no error in the district court’s decision to include the drugs that were in Bell’s possession when determining Fenderson’s relevant conduct. -5- No. 07-4482 United States v. Fenderson