Opinion ID: 779858
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The district court plainly erred in sentencing Bartholomew to 63 months' imprisonment

Text: 59 Bartholomew, in contrast to Harris, did receive a sentence of imprisonment in excess of the 60 month maximum prescribed by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D). But because he did not object at his sentencing to the propriety of the evidentiary standard used by the district court in determining drug quantity, we will vacate his sentence only if it satisfies the plain error standard set forth in Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States v. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295 311-13 (6th Cir.2002) Under that test, before an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affect[s] substantial rights. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 1785, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). We may exercise our discretion to notice the error if these three conditions are met, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. (alteration in original). 60 In light of Apprendi, sentencing Bartholomew to a term of imprisonment in excess of 60 months without the jury determining the quantity of drugs involved was an obvious error. United States v. Cleaves, 299 F.3d 564, 568 (6th Cir.2002) (holding that sentencing a defendant in excess of the statutory maximum for an undetermined drug quantity, where the quantity had not been proved to a jury, met the first two criteria of plain-error analysis). The error also affected his substantial rights, because it made a difference in the outcome of the district court proceedings. Cotton, 122 S.Ct. at 1786. In Cotton, the Supreme Court assumed that the district court's failure to require the jury to determine the drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt was an obvious error that affected the defendant's substantial rights, but held that because evidence of the drug quantity was overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted, the error did not surmount the final hurdle of seriously affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. 61 The circumstances of the present case are different. Evidence concerning the amount of marijuana that Bartholomew conspired to distribute was neither overwhelming nor essentially uncontroverted. For example, the government's witnesses could not state with certainty whether the four additional tubs in Harris's residence had contained marijuana. One law enforcement officer conceded that the tubs were not all the same color, and that he had inspected only one closely. Although evidence of the tubs supports a determination of drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence (as was applied by the district court in determining Harris's sentence), it would not necessarily amount to proof of drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt. Other evidence presented at trial as to the amount of marijuana involved in the conspiracy was also disputed by the defendants. 62 As the government concedes, the jury could have convicted Bartholomew based solely on the single UPS package delivered on December 23, 1998. That package contained approximately 28 pounds of marijuana. But if the jury had found only that amount to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, Bartholomew's sentence could not have exceeded 60 months' imprisonment. In sum, we conclude that sentencing Bartholomew to a term of 63 months' imprisonment under these circumstances seriously affects the fairness of the judicial proceedings and constitutes plain error.