Opinion ID: 792744
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Determination of Hankton's Drug Quantity

Text: 29 Hankton's initial argument is that statements made by Agent Darin concerning various wiretap phone conversations should not have been relied on by the sentencing judge in his determination that Hankton was responsible for the distribution of more than 500 grams of crack under the guidelines. We disagree and believe this argument is misplaced. 30 Hankton has failed to point to anything in the record which might render Agent Darin's testimony at sentencing unreliable, aside from his assertion that portions of his Darin's testimony constituted inadmissibly hearsay. However, as stated above, the rules of evidence do not apply during sentencing proceedings and hearsay is not only an acceptable basis for a sentencing determination, United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d at 1100, it is often an integral part of the sentencing process. Badger, 983 F.2d at 1459. 31 In addition, the district judge specifically found Agent Darin to be a credible witness, a determination which bolstered the judge's decision that Darin's testimony concerning the wiretap conversations was reliable. See United States v. Torres-Ramirez, 213 F.3d 978, 980-81 (7th Cir.2000) Under circumstances such as these we are unwilling to find fault with the sentencing judge's decision to credit Darin's statement in determining the drug quantity attributable to Hankton. Torres-Ramirez, 213 F.3d at 980-81. 32 Also, the district court did not rely solely on witness testimony concluding that Hankton was responsible for distributing more than 500 grams of crack. The government also introduced the signed plea agreements of other members of the MCs in which they admitted that they had purchased crack cocaine from Hankton. Although the plea agreements of the co-defendants may have constituted hearsay, see FED. R. EVID. 801, that evidence was corroborated by other evidence submitted at sentencing, and thus could reasonably be considered reliable by the sentencing judge. See United States v. Martinez, 289 F.3d 1023, 1028-29 (7th Cir.2002) (holding that reliability may be established by corroborating evidence). Indeed, the plea agreements were more than sufficiently corroborated at Hankton's sentencing hearing by the credible testimony of the live witnesses, i.e., Agent Darin and Detective Charles. As the district court concluded, given the entirety of the government's submission, [Agent Darin's testimony] is reliable evidence and should be given substantial weight by the court . . . [i]t is corroborated . . . [i]t all ties together. It is consistent with what the court has heard as the various defendants have entered their pleas of guilty. We agree with this assessment. See id. 33 What's more, the evidence submitted at sentencing was internally consistent with the totality of the evidence in the record and various aspects of that evidence corroborated other aspects. For example, the co-defendants' plea agreements state that Hankton sold them primarily crack cocaine—according to the government's calculation, 1156 grams total. This evidence corroborates both the wiretap phone conversations as well as Agent Darin's testimony as to the substance of those phone calls in which Hankton solicited the purchase of large amounts of crack cocaine, e.g., telling Olden that he could supply him with a half, or a half an ounce of crack. See Salinas, 62 F.3d at 859 (stating that [e]ach member of a conspiracy is accountable for the amount of drugs with which he was directly involved, and for amounts involved in transactions that were reasonably foreseeable.). As this court held in United States v. Torres-Ramirez, credible corroborating testimony is sufficient to provide hearsay evidence, such as the plea agreements and the statements therein, with an indicia of reliability and satisfies the defendant's entitlement to have his sentence determined based on reliable evidence. Id. at 980. Also, the reliability of the plea agreements—as well as Agent Darin's testimony for that matter—was bolstered by the fact that, at sentencing, Hankton took advantage of a reasonable opportunity to rebut the hearsay evidence used against him. United States v. Barnes, 117 F.3d 328, 338 (7th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Francis, 39 F.3d 803, 810 (7th Cir.1994)). 34 Further, even if we were to assume, arguendo, that the testimony given by Agent Darin as well as the co-defendants' plea agreements was unreliable, the live testimony of Jammah Olden, without more, supported—or at the least lent great credence to—the conclusion that Hankton distributed in excess of 500 grams of crack cocaine. As recounted above, Olden testified that for a period of five months (between June and October of 2000) Hankton personally supplied him with individual distribution amounts of crack cocaine—ranging in quantity from one eighth of an ounce to one ounce—every three to four days. According to Olden's testimony, which was unrebutted at sentencing, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that Hankton personally distributed between 134 and 1071 grams of crack cocaine, to Olden alone, in the space of just these five months. 26 See Salinas, 62 F.3d at 859; see also United States v. Durham, 211 F.3d 437, 444 (7th Cir.2000) (stating that estimates of drug quantity are acceptable if they are based on evidence possessing a sufficient indicia of reliability and not nebulous eyeballing). 35 Thus, because the plea agreements submitted at sentencing were corroborated by the credible testimony given by Agent Darin, as well as the live testimony of co-defendant Olden—both of which were subject to thorough cross-examination at sentencing—we hold that the sentencing judge did not err, much less commit clear error when considering this most reliable evidence when determining that Hankton was responsible for distributing in excess of 500 grams of crack cocaine pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. 36