Opinion ID: 171715
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentence on Remand

Text: At the re-sentencing hearing, the government called Wright, his wife Tracy Wright, and Hopkins’ brother, Michael. Wright testified Hopkins became involved in the conspiracy some time between March 1999 and March 2000. Tracy Wright testified he became involved in “the summer of 1999 . . . maybe October.” (R. Vol. II at 385-86.) Michael testified Hopkins became involved in the operation about four to six months before Hopkins’ arrest in March 2000, “maybe” September or October 1999. (Id. at 438-39.) According to these witnesses, the chemicals and equipment provided by Hopkins enabled Wright to manufacture exceptionally large amounts of methamphetamine from each cook. They further testified Hopkins not only used, but sold some of the product he received from Wright. In addition, Tracy Wright described in detail Hopkins’ involvement in removing evidence from Wright’s home after her husband’s arrest. In its Memorandum and Order, the district court disregarded this evidence because the government failed to carry “its burden of showing good cause for waiting until now to come forth with evidence and arguments that were readily available for presentation at the original sentencing.” Hopkins II, 408 F. Supp. 2d at 1137. The court found there was nothing “of record to show either diligence or -7- a good faith reason for the government’s delay in making and pursuing [Hopkins’] objection to the [PSR’s drug quantity determination].” Id. It observed the government was aware of Hopkins’ objection to the PSR and was given the court’s memorandum but, “[d]espite this knowledge, the government chose not to present evidence at the first sentencing and even argued initially on remand, as reflected in its first sentencing memorandum, that the court should rely on . . . erroneous calculations and findings in the PSR.” Id. The court calculated Hopkins’ base offense level based on his involvement after January 26, 2000, (the date of Wright’s arrest) and determined Hopkins provided an “unspecified amount of liquid chemicals, some glassware . . . respirator masks and a set of scales” and assisted in removing and concealing evidence. Id. at 1138. It concluded the evidence demonstrated Hopkins only provided equipment to barter for small amounts of methamphetamine and, thus, did not enter into a conspiracy to manufacture large amounts of methamphetamine. Therefore, the court again “attributed 21 grams of a methamphetamine mixture for the defendant’s bartering of chemicals, glassware and equipment.” Id. at 1139. Although the court recognized Hopkins became more involved when he agreed to destroy and conceal evidence, the court found Hopkins’ “principal motive . . . was to protect his brother.” Id. at 140 (quotations omitted). The court concluded Hopkins could not foresee that Wright’s next cook would yield one pound (approximately 400 grams) because Hopkins’ previous -8- exposure to drug amounts was limited to Wright’s “personal stash,” which was equivalent to 54.4 grams (actual). Based on this amount, the court determined Hopkins’ base offense level was 28. Turning to sentencing enhancements, the court determined a two-level enhancement was appropriate under USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) because the government had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Hopkins possessed a dangerous weapon when removing guns from his brother and Wright’s houses. Id. at 1141-42. Similarly, the court applied a two-level increase pursuant to USSG §3C1.1 for obstruction of justice based on Hopkins’ involvement in concealing evidence. However, unlike the first sentencing where the court determined Hopkins was not entitled to a four-level downward adjustment as a minimal participant in the conspiracy, the court found the evidence at trial supported a two-level reduction for a minor role because Hopkins was a “small player” who sold drugs “primarily to support his own habit.” Id. at 1143. The court’s determinations resulted in a total offense level of 30. With a Criminal History Category of I, the guidelines range was again 97 to 121 months imprisonment. Id. at 1143-44. Addressing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court reiterated its assessment of Hopkins’ relatively limited and minor role, his motivation to protect his brother, his “continuous and noteworthy” employment history, and his representation that he received medals and commendations while in the military. -9- Id. at 1144-45. The court determined these factors suggested an appropriate sentence less than the top of the guidelines range. Id. Looking at the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the court rejected the government’s suggestion that Hopkins’ participation was the equivalent of specific other coconspirators. Instead, it found his participation akin to that of Rhonda Hibbard, a chemist who assisted Wright in perfecting his product. Hibbard was sentenced to 54 months imprisonment based on the government’s USSG §5K recommendations. The court gave significant weight to her sentence in sentencing Hopkins. Id. at 1147. The court concluded a sentence of 108 months was within the sentencing range and consistent with the seriousness of Hopkins’ minor role in the conspiracy. In a footnote, it noted that even had it “accepted the government’s position for a base offense level of 38 . . . [it] would not have imposed a sentence longer than 108 months because of the other sentencing factors . . . [it] discussed.” Id. at 1147 n.9.