Opinion ID: 602407
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Firearms

Text: 318 The appellants argue that, because the government failed to prove that each and every gun listed in the indictment was used or carried during and in relation to this conspiracy, the convictions under count thirty-five should be reversed. Count thirty-five of the indictment charged the defendants with us[ing] and carry[ing] firearms, including the following, whereupon ten specific guns were listed with serial numbers, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.... The appellants claim that by identifying particular firearms in the indictment, the government made these weapons an essential part of the charge. The government introduced eight of the ten listed guns and over forty other guns seized during various raids and arrests. The jury instructions referred to a firearm generally. 319 In United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370, 379 (7th Cir.1991), relied upon heavily by the appellants, the court reversed a firearms conviction, holding that the way the government chose to frame Leichtnam's indictment, it made the [specific gun described in the indictment] an essential part of the charge.... The indictment in that case charged the defendant with using and carrying a firearm, to wit: a Mossberg rifle, Model 250CA with no serial number.... Id. at 374. Two other guns were introduced into evidence, and the jury instruction used the general phrase a firearm. Because the court could not be sure which gun the jury considered in its finding of guilt, it reversed the conviction. Id. at 380. 320 This case is distinguishable. To wit means namely. It is specific, exact, and limiting. Here, the indictment says including. By its terms, this indictment is not limiting. The guns listed did not become essential to the charge, any more than including a list of named coconspirators makes proof of those specific people essential to the charge of conspiracy. In addition, in Griffin v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 466, 116 L.Ed.2d 371 (1991), decided after Leichtnam, the Supreme Court held that a jury verdict is valid as long as sufficient evidence supports conviction for any one object of the offense. Because juries are well-equipped to weigh evidence, they can be trusted to distinguish factually supported from unsupported theories of the crime. Id. at 474. See also Composite Marine Propellers v. Van Der Woude, 962 F.2d 1263, 1265 (7th Cir.1992) (The jury returned a general verdict, so if the evidence supports [the appropriation of] any one of [eight trade secrets], the verdict must be sustained.); Townsend, 924 F.2d at 1414 (It is one thing to negate a verdict that, while supported by evidence, may have been based on an erroneous view of the law; it is another to do so merely on the chance--remote, it seems to us--that the jury convicted on a ground that was not supported by adequate evidence when there existed alternative grounds for which the evidence was sufficient.) (quoted in Griffin, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. at 474). Since the listed guns were not essential to the charge, the jury verdict will be sustained if sufficient evidence supports the use of any of the firearms. 321 A defendant may be found guilty of violating section 924(c) of Title 18 if a coconspirator used or carried a firearm during and in relation to the conspiracy, in furtherance of or as a natural, foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy, and if that defendant was a member of the conspiracy at the time. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). Therefore, as long as the government proved that one coconspirator used or carried one firearm in furtherance of the conspiracy, any defendant who was a member of the conspiracy at that time can be convicted of count thirty-five. The appellants argue that, because some of them joined the conspiracy after the seizure of some guns in evidence, they cannot be held liable for these weapons. In this case, the district court carefully instructed the jury that in order to find any defendant liable under a Pinkerton theory of count 35, it must find that defendant guilty of the conspiracy charged in count one and find beyond a reasonable doubt that, while that defendant was a member of the conspiracy, a coconspirator knowingly used or carried a firearm in relation to the conspiracy, in furtherance or as a natural consequence of that conspiracy. Tr. 5547-48. 322 The weapons admitted into evidence came from raids on drug houses or arrests of conspirators, or were purchased by conspirators. The wiretapped conversations among many conspirators show the widespread awareness of and concern about firearms, referred to commonly as missiles, used and possessed in the course of the conspiracy. The gun seized from Taylor during the Palmer Street house raid, for example, was carried in relation to and as a natural, foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy. If sufficient evidence proves that each appellant belonged to the conspiracy at that time, the convictions under section 924(c) are valid. Even the appellants who were relative latecomers to the conspiracy had joined by then and, as discussed individually above, none of the twelve appellants left the conspiracy before this raid. Although the evidence shows that Goines was under suspicion and that Moreland had to make amends, none of the appellants opted out of the conspiracy at any time before indictment. 323 The appellants argue that the jury instructions for count thirty-five impermissibly broadened the indictment, by permitting a finding of guilt based on using or carrying a firearm instead of the specific firearms listed in the indictment. [T]hough an indictment may be narrowed, ... it may not be broadened, so as to present the ... jury with more or different offenses than the grand jury charged. United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370, 377 (7th Cir.1991) (emphasis in original). Any expansion of the bases for conviction constitutes reversible error. Id. Under the appellants' theory, the instruction submitted to the jury combined with the admission of over fifty firearms at trial may have caused the jury to convict the defendants based on firearms outside the indictment. This argument fails because, as we have already stated, the firearms listed in the indictment were not essential to the charge in count thirty-five; the convictions could be legitimately based on any of the guns admitted into evidence.III. 324 Eleven 5 of the appellants argue that the trial court erred in computing the amount of cocaine attributable to them under the sentencing guidelines. 6 The amount of drugs involved in a conspiracy is a factual determination by the sentencing court which we review for clear error only. United States v. Campbell, 985 F.2d 341 (7th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Cochran, 955 F.2d 1116, 1124 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 460, 121 L.Ed.2d 368 (1992)); see also United States v. Banks, 964 F.2d 687, 692 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 470, 121 L.Ed.2d 377 (1992). Each conspirator is responsible for the amount of cocaine he actually distributed and the amount involved in transactions reasonably foreseeable to him. The derivative nature of coconspirator liability makes it imperative to determine the scope of the conspiratorial agreement each joined. United States v. Thompson, 944 F.2d 1331, 1344 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1177, 117 L.Ed.2d 422 (1992). [T]he determination of the base offense level involves a separate inquiry that is made by the sentencing judge, for a general verdict does not establish with whom a defendant conspired or the quantity of drugs encompassed by the conspiracy. United States v. Edwards, 945 F.2d 1387, 1391 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied sub nom, Martin v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1590, 118 L.Ed.2d 308 (1992). 325 A late entrant to the conspiracy may be held liable for the entire amount of drugs involved if he was aware, or should have been aware, of the amount involved in earlier transactions. This awareness of past quantities corresponds to the concept of reasonable foreseeability of future transaction amounts, and thus depends on the same sort of factual determination. The sentencing judge should state reasons why each individual defendant was aware of or reasonably foresaw the particular amount of drugs for which he will be held accountable, with reference to supportive evidence. Edwards, 945 F.2d at 1399 ([T]he district judge should make clear that he has considered the evidence of the individual defendant's agreement to join a conspiracy of the scope alleged by the government.). In determining the amount of drugs, the court may consider all relevant conduct that was part of the charged offense, regardless of whether that conduct was charged in the indictment. Banks, 964 F.2d at 692 (citing United States Guidelines Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 1B1.3 (Nov.1991)). The government must prove by a preponderance of evidence the occurrence of the conduct that it asks the court to consider as relevant. The court makes credibility judgments concerning the facts of the government's case and the information provided in the presentence report. Id. (citations omitted). 326 Understandably, the district court tried to maximize the efficiency of the sentencing hearings. After a seven week trial, the court was well-versed in the evidence supporting the jury's verdict. The sentencing hearings began in January and dragged on into May, partly due to delays by some defendants and defense counsel. Still, district courts must resist the urge to accept summarily the quantity alleged by the government, even when thirteen defendants are subject to essentially the same proof. These appellants received sentences ranging from 181 months to 516 months. Especially when the sentencing guidelines call for imposing such heavy penalties, the district court must be precise in explaining the basis for specific factual findings, including any adjustments increasing or decreasing the base offense level and criminal history category. 327 On January 14 and 15, 1991, the district court held the first sentencing hearing, for Bernard Goines. First the district court noted the filing of a presentence report, objections filed by Goines, a response by the government, and further objections filed by Goines. At Goines' request, the court adjourned for twenty minutes to allow the probation officer to interview a family member and include updated information in its report. Sent. Tr. 10. The court considered the additional remarks and then adopted the factual findings from the presentence report and the January 8, 1991 addendum to the report, including the findings of the quantity of drugs involved in the conspiracy. Sent. Tr. 13-14. The offense level was thirty-six, with a criminal history category of five. Then the court gave Goines' counsel time to argue the preliminary guideline computation. Sent. Tr. 16. 328 The court heard argument regarding Goines' acceptance of responsibility, before concluding that Goines was not eligible for it. In deciding, the court specifically considered 1) the statement given to the agents which was selective particularly in his degree of involvement, 2) his fugitive status following indictment, 3) the lack of voluntary withdrawal by him from the criminal activity, 4) the two guns found in his possession at the time of his arrest, and 5) the cocaine hidden in the gutter and retrieved after his house was searched. Furthermore, the court stated that while Mr. Goines personally may not have participated in each and every [incident related to the conspiracy], ... he was more than well aware of what the reality of the drug culture and drug dealing was in the inner city for a very protracted period of time and didn't do a thing to assist the law enforcement other than giving this ... rather self-serving statement on the occasion of his arrest. Sent. Tr. 23. 329 Next the court heard argument regarding Goines' role in the offense, before adopting the recommendation of the probation department for a two level enhancement. Goines' role of growing assertiveness in decisions of delivery and direction and his increasing importance to Sterling, despite some distrust, led the court to apply the departure. Referring to notes taken during the course of the trial, the court found that, although Goines played a lesser role originally, his actions and statements toward the end of the conspiracy warranted the enhancement. Sent. Tr. 26. This brought the base offense level from thirty-four to thirty-six. 330 Because the government sought to use a statement given to agents by Goines and Goines challenged its voluntariness, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing before proceeding. Sent. Tr. 36-47, 49-57. Next, Goines called a detective to the stand, to refute additional matters raised in the government's submission about his involvement in two murders; this detective was also questioned by the prosecutor and the district judge. Sent. Tr. 58-67. At this point, before adjourning until the next morning, the court warned Goines that it considered his earlier testimony under oath to be a complete fabrication and suggested that he think about that overnight. Sent. Tr. 68-69. 331 The next morning, the court entertained argument on an obstruction of justice departure, before departing upward two levels to an offense level of thirty-eight. Sent. Tr. 73-80. The departure was based on Goines' perjurious testimony the preceding day, contradicted by the previous statement he gave and the evidence presented at trial. Next, the court heard argument on the appropriate sentence within the guideline computation. Sent. Tr. 82-95. Before imposing the sentence of 516 months, the court referred to outstanding charges of criminal conduct, Goines' utter lack of remorse, and Goines' awareness of two additional murders outside the trial and possible participation in them. Sent. Tr. 95-104. In addition, the court specifically found that the statement Goines gave to the agents after his arrest was voluntary. 332 While it seems almost absurd, after such a complete and extensive hearing, to require more from the sentencing judge, we note that the court adopted wholesale the government's submission on the relevant quantity of cocaine for sentencing. By setting the base offense level in relation to the amount of cocaine involved in the conspiracy, the court failed to make a specific finding of the quantity reasonably foreseeable to Goines. Besides the remark that the amount included drugs which Mr. Goines had no idea existed as opposed to those over which he had direct control (Sent. Tr. 16), Goines' counsel made no specific arguments refuting the amount calculated by the government. Neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel informed the court of the need to make an individual finding of awareness or foreseeability before determining the relevant amount of cocaine. 333 In several of the thirteen sentencing hearings, the district judge, sometimes prompted by the defense counsel's insistence, made sufficiently specific findings of foreseeability to support the imposition of the base offense level thirty-four for over fifteen but under fifty kilograms. For example, at Ellen Jeanette Moreland's hearing, defense counsel and the prosecutor addressed the relevant quantity, point by point. Moreland Sent. Tr. 19-22, 23-25, 25-27. The court found 15 kilograms quite conservative, after hearing the arguments. Moreland Sent. Tr. 27-29, 31. The court also made specific findings before sentencing Lloyd Daniels (Lloyd Sent. Tr. 18-21), Timothy Taylor (Taylor Sent. Tr. 41-45), and Michael Daniels (Michael Sent. Tr. 21-22). 334 Furthermore, Anthony Gray, Debra Henry, and Danny Eppenger failed to preserve the issue of the proper quantity determination because they did not object to the determination at the time of sentencing. Therefore, we review the decision to hold fifteen kilograms attributable to them for plain error. United States v. Livingston, 936 F.2d 333 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 884, 116 L.Ed.2d 787 (1991). The evidence supports both their direct involvement with substantial quantities of cocaine and also the conclusion that each was aware of, or reasonably foresaw, a minimum of fifteen kilograms involved in the conspiracy. Therefore, we affirm their sentences. 335 We are reluctant to vacate and remand the sentences of the other four appellants, especially because the district court has already devoted considerable time to this case, including many thoughtful remarks and credibility findings during the individual sentencing hearings. The law, however, requires specific factual findings by the sentencing judge about the scope of each defendant's agreement in a conspiracy case, where the crucial element in determining the proper base offense level is the reasonable foreseeability, or reasonable awareness, of the quantity of drugs. In this case, the district court adopted findings about the amount of cocaine involved in the entire conspiracy, without making the further determination of the scope of each defendant's agreement. Therefore, the sentences of Goines, White, Walker, and Sloan are vacated and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the requirements of Thompson, Edwards, and this opinion. 7 336 Three appellants raise additional claims regarding the enhancements of their sentences. A sentencing finding of an aggravated role is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Skinner, 986 F.2d 1091, 1095-96 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Ramos, 932 F.2d 611, 617-18 (7th Cir.1991). Under the Guidelines, those who play an aggravating role in the offense are to receive sentences that reflect their greater contributions to the illegal scheme. United States v. Brown, 944 F.2d 1377, 1381 (7th Cir.1991). The district court is in the best position to determine each defendant's relative culpability. United States v. Tetzlaff, 896 F.2d 1071 (7th Cir.1990). 337 Moreland argues that the district court erred in increasing her base offense level for her role as a manager or supervisor. The relevant guideline provides for a three level upward departure [i]f the defendant was a manager or supervisor ... and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Moreland contends that the evidence showed that she only directed two people, McGee and Dedrick. The guideline, however, does not require that the defendant controlled five or more people. Application is proper if the defendant was a manager, i.e. exercised some control over others involved in the criminal scheme, and the scheme involved five or more people. United States v. McGuire, 957 F.2d 310, 316-17 (7th Cir.1992). In this case, Moreland managed McGee and Dedrick's drug running between Chicago and Milwaukee. Drawing the kilogram purchasing conspiracy as narrowly as possible, Sterling, Michael, and the Chicago supplier were also involved; counting Moreland, that makes a minimum of six participants. Therefore, there is no error in increasing Moreland's sentence. 338 Sterling claims that the district court committed clear error in determining both his base offense level and his criminal history category. The district court added a two level increase under the second application note in the commentary to Sentencing Guideline 2D1.5, which provides for an upward departure [i]f as part of the enterprise the defendant sanctioned the use of violence, or if the number of persons managed by the defendant was extremely large. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.5, Commentary Note 2. The court found, at sentencing, that, while Sterling may not have been out on the street riding around in the van doing the drive-by shootings, he condoned the violence engaged in by coconspirators. Sterling Sent. Tr. 66, 72-73. The court also referenced the plan for Kenneth Smith's assault. Additionally, the court found that Sterling managed somewhere in between five and ... fifty people. Sterling Sent. Tr. 74. The record is this case supports the court's findings that Sterling approved of, or even incited, violence in the conspiracy. See, e.g. Ex. 1164 T; Ex. 1298 T. As the leader of the coconspirators, he clearly supervised at least ten, and probably many more, people. 339 The court also increased Sterling's criminal history category from I to III, based on the inadequate representation of his criminal history. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. The court considered Sterling's prior conviction for drug distribution, and the fact that he received a suspended sentence in that case, 8 before increasing the criminal history category. Sterling Sent. Tr. 74-77. Sterling's prior conviction of a felony narcotics offense provides an adequate basis for an upward departure in his criminal history category. See United States v. Schmude, 901 F.2d 555, 559 (7th Cir.1990) (Rationally, if a defendant has been convicted of the same offense more than once, he has demonstrated the need for greater sanctions to deter him from committing that same crime again....). The degree of the departure is also reasonable; if Sterling's sentence for the previous conviction had not been stayed, he would have received a criminal history category of III, for a prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a). The court correctly used as a reference in determining degree of departure, the Guideline range for the Criminal History Category that most closely resembles defendant's criminal history. Schmude, 901 F.2d at 559. The enhancement, therefore, was not in error. 340 The district court increased Michael's base offense level by four points based on its finding that he was a leader or organizer. The relevant guideline provides for a four level increase [i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Among the factors to be considered, according to the comment to the guideline, are the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, ... and the degree of control and authority exercised over others. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 Commentary Note 3. 341 In applying the enhancement, the court specifically noted that Michael ruled with the proverbial iron fist through intimidation, considerable divergence in personality from his brother Sterling. Michael Sent. Tr. 37-38. The court also found that, were it not for those whom he recruited and worked with in distributing cocaine ..., and the organizational networking, whether it was through the BOS or others, the conspiracy would not have been the same. Michael Sent. Tr. 39. This comports with the picture of Michael that emerged during the trial, as the main BOS link to the conspiracy and as one who recruited members and ran his own drug house. Clearly, as determined above, the criminal activity in this case involved more than five people. Therefore, the four level enhancement to his sentence was not error.