Opinion ID: 667507
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Frank Arms

Text: 79
80 Arms contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction on the conspiracy charge because, at most, it established a mere buyer-seller relationship between him and other members of the conspiracy. However, as the government points out: 81 Even if the relationship between the accused and the other members of the conspiracy is that of buyer-seller, ... a conspiracy may yet be proved by evidence of a concert of action. [ United States v. Koenig, 856 F.2d 843 (7th Cir.1988) ] at 854; United States v. Creamer, 555 F.2d 612, 615 (7th Cir.1977). An ongoing relationship involving the distribution of drugs is evidence of a concert of action. Koenig, 856 F.2d at 854; [ United States v. Mancillas, 580 F.2d 1301 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 958, 99 S.Ct. 361 (1978) ] at 1307. 82 United States v. Douglas, 874 F.2d 1145, 1152 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 841, 110 S.Ct. 126 (1989); see also United States v. Lechuga, 994 F.2d 346, 349-50 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 482 (1993). 83 Viewed favorably to the government, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conspiracy conviction. Beginning in 1987, Arms purchased kilogram quantities of cocaine from or through Milton Sims, Tim Eastern, Tooter Ellison, Linda Williams, and Jim McGee. Tr. 114-16; 172-74; 176-82; 324-28; 580-81. On some occasions, Arms paid up front for the cocaine, but at others, the cocaine was fronted to him. E.g., Tr. 326-27. The latter arrangement suggests, contrary to Arms' argument, a stake in the success of the conspiracy. Phone records also revealed extensive contacts with other members of the conspiracy from 1987 to 1990. Gov.Ex. 543-46. All of these facts suggest an ongoing relationship involving the distribution of drugs and thus membership in the conspiracy. See Douglas, 874 F.2d at 1152-1153. We therefore affirm Arms' conviction on Count One of the second superseding indictment. 84 2. Sufficiency of the Evidence--Attempted Possession of Six Kilograms on July 7, 1988 (Count Three) 85 This charge arises from the attempt to make a controlled delivery of the two Federal Express packages of cocaine to Linda Williams, who refused the packages at Sims' instruction. Tr. 330. Arms contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for attempted possession of this cocaine. The government relies upon the following evidence: 86 (1) Linda Williams testified that Arms and Wee Wee were the sole recipients of the kilograms of cocaine she received from Los Angeles. Tr. 324-28. 87 (2) Phone toll analysis indicated that calls were placed from a phone associated with Milton Sims to Arms' residence twice on July 1, 1988. Tr. 962; Gov.Ex. 546. Presumably, the logistics of the transaction were being discussed. Gov.Br. at 71. 88 (3) On July 9, 1988, three calls were placed from Arms' residence to a phone and beeper number in Los Angeles associated with Sims. Tr. 958; Gov.Ex. 536. Again, the government argues that it is reasonable to infer that the lost shipment of cocaine was their main topic of discussion. Gov.Br. 71. 89 We find this evidence inadequate to sustain the conviction for attempted possession. As we have noted, an attempt charge requires proof that the defendant acted with specific intent to commit the underlying offense, and in addition took a substantial step toward its completion. Cea, 914 F.2d at 887. At trial, Williams testified that on each of the three to five occasions she had received Federal Express shipments of cocaine, Arms had come to her home and purchased at least a portion of the shipment. Tr. 326. Perhaps, in light of that testimony and the phone records reflecting continued contact between Arms and Sims, the jury might reasonably have inferred that Arms had the requisite intent to possess the cocaine involved in the aborted delivery. What the evidence fails to establish, however, is a substantial step by Arms toward the possession of this particular shipment. If, for example, the evidence revealed that Arms placed an order during one of the telephone calls reflected in the record, or in some other way made concrete arrangements with Sims for the July 9th shipment, that might be enough to establish Arms' attempt to possess the cocaine. See United States v. Jonsson, No. 93-1531, 1994 WL 25083,  3, 15 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. Feb. 2, 1994); United States v. Argencourt, 996 F.2d 1300, 1303 (1st Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 731 (1994); United States v. Pennyman, 889 F.2d 104, 107 (6th Cir.1989). But although the government suggests that this is exactly the kind of discussion Arms and Sims were having, in fact the jury could only have speculated on that point, for the government had no evidence revealing what Arms and Sims discussed (or even that it was Arms and Sims acutally speaking). Thus, although the chronology of the phone calls renders it possible that Arms and Sims were discussing the ill-fated shipment (see generally United States v. Marks, supra, 816 F.2d at 1211-12), it did not reasonably permit the jury to so find beyond a reasonable doubt. 4 We are therefofe compelled to reverse Arms' conviction on Count Three of the second superseding indictment and remand for re-sentencing. 90 3. Sufficiency of the Evidence--Possession of Cocaine on September 2, 1988 (Count Four) 91 On September 2, 1988, Ann Love and Tooter arrived in Milwaukee with a suitcase full of cocaine, which was taken to Nathan Holloway's house. The government concedes that [t]here is no direct evidence ... as to which distributors ultimately received the cocaine. Gov.Br. 71. Nonetheless, the government maintains that Arms may be held liable for possessing this shipment, based upon the following: 92 (1) Arms received kilograms quantities of cocaine from Sims on other occasions. Tr. 115-16, 172-75, 176-78, 324-28. 93 (2) Circumstantial evidence indicates that Arms remained involved with Sims and the other conspirators until the date of Sims' arrest on March 9, 1990. This evidence includes records of phone activity, the phone lists taken from Sims and Brown when they were arrested, and the items found in the search of Arms' residence. Tr. 744-50; 908-14; 916-18; Gov.Ex. 156, 178, 278, 278A, 384, 385. 94 (3) Circumstantial evidence also suggests, in the government's view, that Arms had an interest in this particular shipment of cocaine. Phone records reveal that on September 1, 1988, a call was placed from Arms' residence to a Los Angeles business phone associated with Milton Sims. Tr. 961; Gov.Ex. 961. On September 3, 1988, a call was placed from a number associated with Sims to Arms' residence. Tr. 962; Gov.Ex. 546. 95 We must reverse Arms' conviction on this count as well. Certainly the evidence that the government has cited makes it possible that Arms received this shipment of cocaine, given his prior purchases and his continued contact with other conspirators. But there were other distributors, and the government has cited no evidence that would reasonably permit a jury to conclude that this particular shipment was destined for Arms. In this respect, the evidence is far weaker than the evidence concerning the preceding attempt charge, for there is no equivalent to Linda Williams' testimony that Arms was always a recipient of her shipments. The solitary phone call from Arms' number to Sims' on the day before the arrival of Love and Tooter does not sufficiently tie Arms to the shipment--for all we know, Arms may have told Sims he was not interested in the shipment or offered a price that Sims declined. Or perhaps they discussed baseball. Only speculation enables the conclusion that the cocaine found its way to Arms in this instance. Accordingly, we reverse Arms' conviction on Count Four of the second superseding indictment. 96 4. Sufficiency of the Evidence--Attempted Possession of Four Kilograms on March 9, 1990 (Count Seven) 97 Once again, this is the attempted controlled delivery through Baker to Sims and Darryl Tooter Ellison. Because Sims and Ellison fled from the scene when Baker disclosed that she had been arrested and the police were present, we do not know to whom Sims and Ellison would have given the cocaine. The government concedes that there is no direct evidence that Arms was still involved in the conspiracy at this point. Gov.Br. 73. Nonetheless, it relies upon the following circumstances to support the notion that Arms likely remained active and received the cocaine: 98 (1) A handwritten list of nine phone numbers found on Sims at the time of his arrest included Arms' number. Tr. 916; Gov.Ex. 178, 384. 99 (2) A similar list of seven numbers retrieved from Brown at the time of her arrest included Arms' number. Tr. 918; Gov.Ex. 156, 385. 100 (3) Phone records disclose that on March 2, 1990, Arms placed four calls from his mobile phone to Sims' beeper (Tr. 962, Gov.Ex. 545), and a call was placed from a mobile phone used by Sims and Tooter to Arms' residence (Tr. 962, Gov.Ex. 546). 101 We find the evidence as to this charge wanting for the same reasons we have articulated as to the preceding two counts. This evidence may tend to show Arms' continuing association with the other conspirators. But absent some evidence as to what Arms may have discussed with Sims and Tooter, there is nothing to tie him to this particular shipment of cocaine. We therefore reverse Arms' conviction on Count Seven of the second superseding indictment. 102 5. Admission of guns and cocaine found in Arms' residence 103 The district court permitted the government to introduce evidence that a loaded .44 caliber revolver and a loaded Baretta 380 semi-automatic pistol, along with an eight ball quantity (one-eighth of an ounce) of cocaine were found in the search of Arms' residence. Tr. 745-47; Gov.Ex. 284, 282. A small quantity of marijuana was also found in Arms' home, but was not offered into evidence. The district court agreed with the government that the cocaine was admissible either as substantive evidence of the conspiracy or, at the very least, Rule 404(b) evidence bearing on Arms' intent. Tr. 765-67. The court noted that there was no evidence the cocaine was for personal use. Tr. 766. The guns were admitted as tools of the trade. Tr. 765-77. Arms contends that the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. 104 As the government notes, we have held that weapons are admissible in drug cases as hallmarks of the narcotics trade. See United States v. Alvarez, 860 F.2d 801, 829 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1051, 109 S.Ct. 1966 (1989). We therefore discern no basis to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the two guns. 105 Likewise we discern no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of the cocaine. The small quantity might not have been particularly probative as substantive evidence of the conspiracy; after all, according to the government, Arms was receiving multi-kilogram quantities from Sims. And if the cocaine was indeed intended for Arms' personal use, it might not have been admissible. See United States v. Troop, 890 F.2d 1393, 1401 n. 12 (7th Cir.1989). However, this was not the only possibility: this may have been cocaine that Arms was prepared to sell to someone else for personal use, for example. Because we think the record permitted that inference, and because conspiracy is a specific intent crime, we think the cocaine had some probative value with respect to Arms' knowledge and intent. 106 6. Sentencing Calculation of Amount of Cocaine Attributed to Arms 107 The presentence report recommended that Arms be held responsible for fifty to 150 kilograms of cocaine, a quantity resulting in a base offense level of 36. Arms PSR p 120. The district court ultimately found Arms responsible for between fifteen and fifty kilograms, resulting in a base offense level of 34. Sent.Tr. 21. Arms contends that the court abused its discretion in doing so, presumably meaning that the district court's finding as to the amount of cocaine was clearly erroneous. The government argues that the amount is justified on two grounds: (1) Arms was involved in the conspiracy from 1987 until its termination in 1990 (and can thus be held to account for all foreseeable amounts that may be attributed to the conspiracy as a whole); (2) the amounts charged in the possession charges on which Arms was convicted alone total over fifteen kilograms. 108 Because we have reversed Arms' conviction on three substantive counts that together involve approximately fifteen kilograms of cocaine, on remand the district court, consistent with our remarks supra at 31-32, should consider anew the quantities of cocaine that may be attributed to Arms either because he was directly involved in the relevant transactions or because the transactions were reasonably foreseeable to him as a member of the conspiracy.