Opinion ID: 735402
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Drug Quantity Involved in the Offense

Text: 42 The second issue raised by Rivera-Rosa on appeal is whether the district court erred in determining the drug quantity attributable to him. Rivera-Rosa advances three arguments on this issue: (i) that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in making its determination that 3.4 kilograms of the heroin distributed pursuant to the conspiracy should be attributed to Rivera-Rosa; (ii) that the district court erred in finding that Rivera-Rosa actively participated in the shipment of 3.4 kilograms of heroin; and (iii) that the district court erred in not conducting a Fatico hearing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court's decision as to the drug quantity attributable to Rivera-Rosa.
43 In narcotics cases, for purposes of the Guidelines and the operation of the mandatory minimum sentences, the district court must make a determination at sentencing of the quantity of drugs involved in the offense. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 960(b)(1), 963 (1982 and Supp.1996); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3). In a drug conspiracy case, [a] court is entitled to consider 'all transactions engaged in by a defendant or by his coconspirators if the transactions were either known to him or reasonably foreseeable to him.'  United States v. Podlog, 35 F.3d 699, 706 (2d Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Negron, 967 F.2d 68, 72 (2d Cir.1992)). The district court has broad discretion to consider all relevant information when making a finding concerning quantity of drugs involved.... United States v. Pico, 2 F.3d 472, 475 (2d Cir.1993). Moreover, [t]he Government need only establish the amount of the narcotics foreseeable to the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.... Podlog, 35 F.3d at 706. 44 Rivera-Rosa argues that the district court held that his mere awareness of the scope of the conspiracy was sufficient to render him responsible for the full amount of the imported heroin. In fact, the district court found that Rivera-Rosa was aware of what was going on with respect to that other material and he participated in the conspiracy to bring it into the country. It noted that the issue is the scope, his knowledge of the scope of the agreement and what was contemplated to jointly undertake in criminal activity. Thus, the district court's determination satisfied the either known to ... or reasonably foreseeable to standard. Podlog, 35 F.3d at 706.
45 Rivera-Rosa also takes issue with the district court's conclusion that the shipment of the 3.4 kilograms of heroin was known to or reasonably foreseeable to him. The reviewing court shall accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous.... 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if, after reviewing all the evidence, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact-finder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 369, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1871-72, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). Moreover, in reviewing whether the facts supported a district court's findings, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Paccione, 949 F.2d 1183, 1208 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1220, 112 S.Ct. 3029, 120 L.Ed.2d 900 (1992). Finally, where the district court's findings are based on the testimony of witnesses, they are entitled to special deference. United States v. Beverly, 5 F.3d 633, 642 (2d Cir.1993). 46 At sentencing, the district court rejected Rivera-Rosa's argument that his role in the conspiracy was limited to that of a buyer of one kilogram of heroin. The district court found that Rivera-Rosa agreed to and did oversee two of the couriers as they flew from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico with the approximately four kilograms of heroin strapped to their bodies. The district court also found that Rivera-Rosa was in effect, the courier of the couriers, and that he associated himself with the four kilogram venture, facilitated it, and that then became the scope of his agreement even though he only wanted one of those four kilograms. In light of this record and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we are not left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Thus, we conclude that the district court's determination that the approximately four kilograms of heroin were known to or reasonably foreseeable to Rivera-Rosa was not clearly erroneous.
47 Finally, Rivera-Rosa takes issue with the district court's failure to conduct a Fatico hearing on this question. Prior to sentencing, in a letter commenting on the recommendations of the presentence report, Rivera-Rosa's attorney had requested a hearing to contest Rivera-Rosa's responsibility for the large quantity of drugs being attributed to him. But, based on the colloquy at the sentencing hearing, the court was entitled to infer that Rivera-Rosa had abandoned the request and had no witnesses to call. Rivera-Rosa made no sign that he sought to present any testimony. The court engaged in substantial colloquy with counsel about the disputed issues and then declared that it was prepared to decide. The court announced a decision adverse to Rivera-Rosa and proceeded to impose sentence. At no point did Rivera-Rosa protest the failure to conduct a hearing. 48 Furthermore, the court had heard the Government's witnesses at trial, and Rivera-Rosa had cross-examined them. In view of the fact that Rivera-Rosa did not offer his own testimony or any other, there was no reason to conduct any further evidentiary hearing. We conclude that the district court was wholly within its proper discretion in proceeding to sentence without an evidentiary hearing.