Opinion ID: 2994935
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual Concerns

Text: Our review of the factual determinations in this case is challenging because key parts of the factual record are shallow. To fashion Noble’s sentence, the district court necessarily engaged in a spate of credibility determinations involving evaluating the defendant’s word against a witness’s. We emphasize that uncorroborated evidence can be a sufficient basis for a sentence, see United States v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 807, 813 (7th Cir. 2000), and we are reluctant to disturb credibility determinations absent a compelling reason.
Noble argues that the court committed three errors in determining the amount of drugs by: (1) committing a mathematical error when it aggregated the quantity of drugs in counts one and two; (2) double counting the drugs found in Noble’s garage by including them in both counts; and (3) basing its determination of drug quantity on unreliable evidence. Noble correctly charges clear error in his first two contentions. First, when adding the quantity of drugs found in counts one and two, the district court mistakenly arrived at a total of 1,390.064 kilograms; the correct total is 1068.40 kilograms. Second, Noble and the government agree that the judge impermissibly double counted the 37.04 kilograms of drugs found in Burke’s car. The drug quantity must therefore be reduced by that amount to a total of 1031.36 kilograms. Noble next argues that the court erred by basing its findings on the unreliable testimony of Spaeth, Jobe, Ackley, and Groff. We accord great deference to the district court’s sentencing determinations, including drug quantity, and we will not overturn its findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See United States v. Berthiaume, 233 F.3d 1000, 1002 (7th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). However, there are limits to our deference. The court’s sentence determinations must be based on reliable evidence, not speculation or unfounded allegations. See United States v. Pigee, 197 F.3d 879, 889 (7th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); United States v. Howard, 80 F.3d 1194, 1204 (7th Cir. 1996) (Estimates of the drug quantities attributable to the defendant are permissible, of course, so long as they are based on evidence possessing sufficient indicia of reliability and not ’nebulous eyeballing.’). The government bears the burden to prove the facts supporting the sentence by a preponderance of the evidence. See Johnson, 227 F.3d at 813. We address Noble’s most serious challenge first. Noble urges us to reverse the district court’s decision to attribute 100 ounces of cocaine to him based on Spaeth’s testimony. Spaeth’s inconsistent estimation of drug quantity, 50 ounces in a police interview and 100 ounces under oath, required the district court to undertake a ’sufficiently searching inquiry into the government’s evidence to insure its probable accuracy.’ United States v. Galbraith, 200 F.3d 1006, 1012 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). In this case, the district court’s inquiry was rather cursory. Combined with Spaeth’s poor memory, no doubt caused by his extensive history of drug use, the district court’s treatment of the discrepancy makes Noble’s charge of error a close call. Our question about the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry is heightened by its failure to designate the source of 5 ounces of cocaine which it attributed to Noble, and which we discuss below. The district court credited Spaeth’s testimony under oath, justifying its decision by noting that it was consistent with the rest of Spaeth’s testimony. Spaeth explained the discrepancy between his estimates as follows: getting more to being kept on record, when I admitted 50, it was a discussion with the officers. When it came time to have it written down legally, I realized it was more. Further, Spaeth provided the court with particulars that bolstered this 100 ounce estimate. Spaeth testified that he purchased cocaine from Noble for roughly two years. Initially he bought small amounts approximating 1/16 of an ounce, but his purchases increased, culminating in a 7 ounce buy. Spaeth estimated that on average, he purchased between 1 and 2 ounces of cocaine from Noble per week. Noble maligns Spaeth’s credibility because Spaeth has a self-admitted poor memory and had a lengthy history of drug abuse. However, the district court is entitled to credit a broad range of testimony. See United States v. McEntire, 153 F.3d 424, 436 (7th Cir. 1998) (stating that the court may credit testimony that is totally uncorroborated and comes from an admitted liar, convicted felon, large scale drug-dealing, paid government informant.). We have qualms about the district court’s adoption of Spaeth’s 100 ounce estimate. However, the burden at sentencing is merely a preponderance of the evidence, and our review of the district court’s fact-finding and credibility determinations is highly deferential. A reading of the whole sentencing record reveals that this experienced judge was mindful of Spaeth’s memory lapses. Ultimately, we conclude that the testimony and the judge’s inquiry were sufficient to ensure the reliability of the 100 ounce estimate. Next, Noble challenges as speculative and unreliable Jobe’s testimony establishing that Noble possessed 65 ounces of cocaine. Jobe’s testimony is partly based on firsthand knowledge. He accompanied Noble to strip clubs for the purpose of selling cocaine, and on each occasion, he watched Noble sell between 1/2 and 1 ounce of cocaine. Jobe also testified that Noble admitted to selling cocaine at the strip clubs five nights a week for over a year. The district court is entitled to estimate drug quantity using testimony about the frequency of dealing and the amount dealt over a specified period of time. See United States v. Durham, 211 F.3d 437, 444 (7th Cir. 2000) (affirming district court’s estimate of quantity by considering testimony of the frequency of dealing and a conservative estimate of the amount dealt per transaction over a two year period). In calculating Noble’s quantity, the district court conservatively assumed that Noble sold 1/2 ounce of cocaine five nights a week for a year, resulting in a total of 130 ounces. The district court cautiously divided the 130 ounces figure in half, arriving at a total of 65 ounces of cocaine. Noble charges that Jobe was not a credible witness because he is a convicted felon and admitted drug user/ dealer. Noble’s challenge falls short. The district court is entitled to credit testimony from people with Jobe’s credentials. See McEntire, 153 F.3d at 436. In the absence of inconsistency in a witness’s story, we defer to the district court’s determination of witness credibility, which can virtually never be clear error. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). The detail in Jobe’s testimony is consistent and sufficient to demonstrate its reliability. Further, Jobe is not speculating about the frequency of Noble’s dealing. Noble himself provided Jobe with this information. Noble protests that such evidence is hearsay, however, we believe this statement by Noble against his interest was admissible. Even if it is hearsay, [h]earsay evidence is permissible at sentencing where the rules of evidence do not apply. Berthiaume, 233 F.3d at 1003 (citing United States v. Morrison, 207 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir. 2000)). The district court did not err when it attributed 65 ounces of cocaine to Noble. Noble challenges the inclusion of what he calls the mysterious five ounces. Although the district court did not explicitly state the source of the cocaine, the record clearly shows the source. Jobe testified that he assisted Noble in selling between 5 and 10 ounces of cocaine at strip clubs. The district court was entirely justified in relying on testimony based on Jobe’s firsthand experience, and in choosing to attribute a conservative 5 ounces of cocaine to Noble. Noble urges that the judge has committed clear error by engaging in calculations to determine the amount of drugs Ackley and Groff distributed for Noble when the witnesses themselves offered lower estimates of the absolute amounts. The district court rejected Ackley’s estimate that he received 40 pounds of marijuana from Noble, and attributed 50 pounds instead. The court calculated that Noble distributed 17.5 pounds of marijuana through Groff, rather than the 14 pounds Groff estimated. The government argues, and we agree, that if error occurred here, it was harmless. Even if the district court accepted the witness’s lower estimates, they, by themselves, would not decrease the drug quantity below 1000 kilograms.
Noble further argues that the sentence enhancements were erroneous because they are based on unreliable evidence. We review the district court’s sentence enhancement determinations for clear error. See id. at 1002. Again, the government bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See Johnson, 227 F.3d at 813. The court imposed an enhancement for Noble’s role as an organizer or leader, the connection between a deadly weapon and the drug offense, and Noble’s efforts to obstruct justice. We address them in turn.
Noble challenges his four-level organizer or leader enhancement. Such an enhancement is merited upon a finding that the defendant was an organizer or leader of criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive U.S.S.G. sec. 3B1.1(a). Comment 4 directs the sentencing judge to consider seven factors: (1) exercise of decision making authority; (2) nature of participation in the commission of the offense; (3) recruitment of accomplices; (4) claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime; (5) degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense; (6) nature and scope of the illegal activity; and (7) degree of control and authority exercised over others. See U.S.S.G. sec. 3B1.1(a) cmt. 4. Justifying the enhancement, the district court emphasized that Noble had more than a buyer- seller relationship with Spaeth, Jobe, Burke, Groff, and Henning. Noble provided drugs for the whole distribution scheme. He controlled the drug price and delivery and fronted drugs to Spaeth. He used his compatriots to insulate himself from some of the perils of dealing by directing them to engage in the necessary, but risky behavior of transporting and storing drugs. Noble frequently used Jobe, Henning, Groff, and Burke as mules to deliver his drugs to buyers. Noble stored drugs at Spaeth’s trailer and in Jobe’s car, and retained a key to Spaeth’s trailer so he could access the drugs when Spaeth was not home. Noble exercised particular control over Spaeth and Henning because they depended on Noble to supply their own drug habits. Noble exercised such psychological control over Burke that Burke agreed to go to jail for Noble. We agree with the district court’s assessment. Noble asserts that he was a mere distributor and notes that being a distributor by itself does not justify application of the enhancement, see United States v. Mustread, 42 F.3d 1097, 1104 (7th Cir. 1994). But this protestation rings hollow. We agree with the district court’s finding that Noble exercised the requisite control over Spaeth, Jobe, Burke, Groff, and Henning to support the organizer or leader enhancement.
Noble protests the two-level firearm enhancement applied under U.S.S.G. sec. 2D1.1(b)(1). The firearm enhancement should be applied if a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. U.S.S.G. sec. 2D1.1(b)(1) & cmt 3. Police found the gun in Henning’s closet in the bedroom Noble shared with her. A loaded clip lay next to the gun, and drug proceeds were present in the room. Noble argues that the evidence does not tie the gun to him and that it is clearly improbable that the gun was used in connection with drug distribution. The government must prove possession by a preponderance of the evidence; the burden to show a clearly improbable connection then falls on the defendant. See Berthiaume, 233 F.3d at 1003-04. The district court found that the gun belonged to Noble. The court credited Henning’s testimony that Noble placed the gun in her closet. We are reluctant to disturb this credibility judgment. In addition, the district court found that the connection between the gun and his offense was probable. ’An enhancement under sec. 2D1.1(b)(1) is appropriate for simple, and entirely passive, possession’ of a firearm. . . . The proximity of a weapon to drug proceeds provides a sufficient nexus to conclude that ’it was not clearly improbable that the gun was connected with the offense.’ Johnson, 227 F.3d at 814 (citations omitted). Given that the gun and the drug proceeds were located in the same room, the district court was correct to impose the enhancement.
Last, Noble challenges the enhancement for obstructing justice. This enhancement is merited when the defendant wilfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the course of . . . prosecution . . . of the instant offense of conviction including committing, suborning, or attempting to suborn perjury. U.S.S.G. sec. 3C1.1 & cmt. 4(b). The judge found that Noble committed perjury during his testimony by lying about his reasons for running from his home during the police raid, by coaching and orchestrating Burke’s false confession and paying him for it, by falsely denying that he owned the gun in the closet, by untruthfully professing that he did not deal drugs, and by lying about lacking knowledge about the safe in Spaeth’s apartment and the drugs in Burke’s car. Noble argues that the judge erred because her finding of perjury is supported only by the testimony of government witnesses. True, but this is no reason to overturn the judge’s determination. See McEntire, 153 F.3d at 436. Regardless, the district court’s finding rested on other evidence as well. The testimony of Jobe, Henning, and Burke, along with Burke’s unconvincing cover-up attempt, support the judge’s finding that Noble committed perjury when he denied involvement in the cover-up. Noble’s calculator and Burke’s testimony attribute to Noble knowledge of the drugs found in Burke’s car. Testimony of at least five witnesses link Noble to drug dealing. The district court did not impose the obstruction of justice penalty in error. The district court’s factual errors are harmless because taking them into account, Noble still possessed or distributed 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana and marijuana equivalent. Therefore, we turn to Noble’s constitutional argument.