Opinion ID: 3001572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court’s Drug Type Finding

Text: Padilla challenges whether the government met its burden of proof that the substance involved in the deal was cocaine base in the form of crack for sentencing purposes. At sentencing after a guilty plea, the government has the burden of proving drug type by a preponderance of the 4 No. 06-4370 evidence. United States v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 529, 537 (7th Cir. 2000). We review the district court’s finding of drug type for clear error, and will reverse only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. See United States v. Wilson, 437 F.3d 616, 621 (7th Cir. 2006). As we have held, “[a]ll crack is cocaine base but not all cocaine base is crack.” United States v. Edwards, 397 F.3d 570, 571 (7th Cir. 2005). The term “cocaine base,” for purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), borrows from the definition contained in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, which defines “cocaine base” as “crack.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), Note D; see United States v. Morris, 498 F.3d 634, 644 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Edwards, 397 F.3d at 573-76). As we noted in Morris, “[t]his definition distinguishes between both powder cocaine (cocaine hydrochloride) and cocaine bases and also between crack cocaine and other forms of cocaine base.” 498 F.3d at 644. Therefore, for purposes of sentencing under § 841(b), the evidence must show that the substance at issue is crack, and not just cocaine base. Edwards, 397 F.3d at 576-77. Sentencing judges have wide latitude in the types of evidence they may consider in making factual determinations affecting a sentence. See United States v. Hankton, 432 F.3d 779, 790 (7th Cir. 2005). At Padilla’s sentencing hearing, the government relied primarily on the testimony of Agent Gomez, a six-year veteran of ATF with five years specializing in narcotics trafficking, in its effort to prove the drug type. Agent Gomez testified to the following: on September 20, 2002, during a conversation with Padilla regarding a proposed drug transaction, Padilla offered to sell Agent Gomez crack cocaine. On September 26, 2002, Agent Gomez met the CI, Padilla, and Padilla’s child in a K-Mart parking lot with the intention of purchasing drugs from Padilla and Santiago. While waiting for Santiago to No. 06-4370 5 arrive with the drugs, Agent Gomez asked Padilla how much longer it would be for the drugs to arrive. Padilla responded that the drugs were “in the cooking process, it was drying at the time. . . . That was the reason for the wait.” Agent Gomez, who had made approximately twenty undercover crack cocaine purchases, understood the term “drying” to mean the final process of cooking crack cocaine. Santiago eventually arrived with the drugs in a bag, and gave them to the CI, who smelled the drugs and gave them to Agent Gomez. Agent Gomez noted that the drugs had a “very, very strong, pungent smell,” consistent with the smell of crack cocaine. When the CI asked about the quality of the drugs, Padilla responded that the drugs were “fresh, cooked right off the lamb” and that “the stuff that he had just handed was good and that it was cooked up. It was cooked.” After Agent Gomez left the parking lot with the CI, he asked the CI about the quality of the drugs they had just purchased. The CI replied that “there’s four and a half here, these things—these things cook so small, man, you could take an ounce and they’ll shrink about that big, this stuff was cooked in a brick, all together in one brick.” Agent Gomez understood this statement to mean that “the crack cocaine in this form, a hard substance, rock-like substance will crumble into smaller rocks and the four and a half ounces being purchased was more than likely cooked off the—cooked into a whole kilo and taken that portion out of it.” Ultimately, Agent Gomez testified that based on his training and experience, his participation in the drug deal, and the statements made by the CI and Padilla, the substance he obtained from Padilla was cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine. 6 No. 06-4370 On cross-examination of Agent Gomez, Padilla introduced a written statement prepared by the CI that appeared to contradict the CI’s statements to Agent Gomez. The CI said in the statement that upon opening the package containing the narcotics, he observed “four and a half ounces of cooked rock, a white substance powder.” Padilla argued that the drugs could not be both “crack” and “powder.” The CI did not testify at the sentencing hearing. On redirect, the government pointed out that at another portion of the same statement, the CI said that Santiago “will be at this location to drop off the cocaine of rock.” The government introduced two laboratory reports on the chemical analysis of the drugs. The first analysis tested positive for the presence of cocaine, and the second analysis reflected the presence of cocaine base. Neither lab report tested for the presence of sodium bicarbonate, an ingredient commonly used in preparing crack. The district court concluded that the drugs in question were indeed crack: “On the issue of crack cocaine, based on the testimony of [Agent Gomez]’s observations, what he saw and heard, and the second lab report, I conclude that there is sufficient reliable evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the controlled substance was crack cocaine base.” On appeal, Padilla argues that the analysis of the drugs performed prior to their destruction must be disregarded because neither tested for the presence of sodium bicarbonate. While crack is usually prepared by processing cocaine hydrochloride and sodium bicarbonate, Edwards, 397 F.3d at 572, we have never mandated that a substance must contain sodium bicarbonate in order to be crack. United States v. Lake, 500 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2007). The second laboratory report was only one of the pieces of evidence the district court considered in reaching his conclusion. No. 06-4370 7 We have held that the government can prove a substance is crack by offering testimony from people familiar with the drug, United States v. Anderson, 450 F.3d 294, 301 (7th Cir. 2006), including veteran police officers and forensic chemists, United States v. Linton, 235 F.3d 328, 329-30 (7th Cir. 2000), as well as an informant’s belief that he was purchasing crack, United States v. Booker, 260 F.3d 820, 824 (7th Cir. 2001). See also United States v. Buchanan, 362 F.3d 411, 413 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Branch, 195 F.3d 928, 933-35 (7th Cir. 1999). Though this is a close case, we find no reversible error in the district court’s determination that Padilla possessed crack. The combination of the observations of the veteran narcotics officer, the statements by Padilla regarding the proposed sale of crack and the “cooking” and “drying” of the drugs, and the second laboratory report is minimally sufficient to satisfy the government’s burden of proof and permit a district court to conclude that the substance was crack. Though the CI’s statement in his written report describing the narcotics as “cooked rock, a white substance powder” certainly muddies the water, the entirety of the evidence tips the scale in favor of the district court’s ultimate conclusion. Padilla suggests that the government failed to meet its burden because the destruction of the narcotics precluded the introduction of the drugs at the hearing. We note that the destruction of the drugs was indeed regrettable. To an extent, however, Padilla’s protestations ring a bit hollow, as he had the opportunity to file a motion for an independent expert to examine the drugs—prior to the discovery of their destruction—and chose not do so. More to the point, the government need not present the substance in the courtroom during the sentencing hearing in order to meet its burden that the substance is crack. See Lake, 500 F.3d at 8 No. 06-4370 634 (citing Buchanan, 362 F.3d at 413; Linton, 235 F.3d at 329-30). Our deferential standard of review in this matter compels our conclusion that there was no clear error. We note, however, that the evidence distinguishing crack cocaine from other forms of cocaine base in this case was undeniably thin. Though the government asked Agent Gomez if he could distinguish between crack and powder cocaine, it did not ask him to distinguish between crack and other types of cocaine base. We reiterate that in cases such as this the government must produce evidence to show that the substance was specifically crack, and not just any form of cocaine base. See Morris, 498 F.3d at 644; Edwards, 397 F.3d at 576-77. Given the disparity between crack and other cocaine bases, and in the wake of Kimbrough and the amended crack Sentencing Guidelines (discussed more fully below), it is all the more critical that the government meet its burden of proving the drugs to be crack cocaine as distinct from other forms of cocaine base.