Opinion ID: 220765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Drug Quantity Calculation

Text: `The government bears the burden of proving drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence.' Johnson, 619 F.3d at 921 (quoting United States v. Marshall, 411 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir.2005)). Drug quantity findings are findings of fact that are reviewed for clear error, and we must affirm unless the entire record firmly convinces us that a mistake has been made. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In a drug conspiracy case, the district court may consider amounts from drug transactions in which the defendant was not directly involved if those dealings were part of the same course of conduct or scheme. United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1014 (8th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Guidelines permit a district court to approximate the quantity of drugs for sentencing purposes where . . . there has been no direct seizure of drugs directly establishing the relevant amount. United States v. Zierke, 618 F.3d 755, 761 (8th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, the court can determine drug quantity using imprecise evidence, so long as the record reflects a basis for the court's decision. Id. The jury found Bradley was responsible for less than 500 grams of cocaine in finding him guilty of the conspiracy charge. In calculating the drug quantity attributable to Bradley, the PSR stated there was no information placing Bradley in the conspiracy prior to September 2008. As a result, the PSR only included as relevant conduct Bradley's association with Potratz from September 1, 2008, to November 7, 2008, the date Bradley was arrested and detained. According to the PSR's estimation, Potratz delivered one-half ounces of cocaine to Bradley once per week, resulting in Bradley being personally responsible for obtaining and distributing 127.8 grams of cocaine (14.2 grams per week for nine weeks). The PSR also included cocaine distributed by Potratz to Shelton during the same time, which was approximately 113.6 grams due to Shelton's arrest on October 30, 2008 (14.2 grams per week for eight weeks). In sum, the PSR concluded Bradley was responsible for obtaining and distributing 241.4 grams. The district court agreed with this determination, overruling Bradley's objection to the PSR's calculation. Bradley contends the court's finding was clearly erroneous, and he requests the drug quantity be reduced to 100 to 200 grams, placing him at a base offense level of 18, instead of the level 20 he was assigned. According to Bradley, the evidence did not support his involvement in the conspiracy until mid-September, at the earliest, coinciding with the date he moved into Shelton's apartment. As for the date of termination, Shelton testified she last had contact with Bradley on November 3, 2008, which is the date she claims to have been arrested. However, Bradley asserts this date was no later than October 30, 2008, which is the day Shelton was arrested according to his PSR. In addition, Potratz testified he had no contact with Bradley after Bradley left town, which the PSR estimated to be November 7, 2008, when Bradley was jailed on a parole violation. Bradley claims the correct date was October 22, 2008, when he fled from his probation officer and failed to return to Shelton's apartment. Taken together, Bradley calculates a period of six weeks of his involvement in the conspiracy, rather than the nine weeks contemplated by the district court. Therefore, he argues he should have been responsible for only 170.4 grams of cocaine for sentencing purposes, which includes the amount attributed to Shelton (28.4 grams per week for six weeks). This calculation would lower his Guidelines range from 51 to 63 months to 41 to 51 months. We conclude the district court's findings are supported by the record. Potratz testified Stockman rejoined his crew in May or June of 2008, or maybe a little before. Trial Tr. Vol. 1, 14. Soon after this point, Potratz was introduced to Bradley. Id. at 54. Approximately three months later, Stockman left for Sioux Falls and Potratz assumed the role as the primary contact for Bradley, placing the time frame around August to September of 2008. Id. at 20. Potratz testified Stockman was in Sioux Falls for about two weeks, and during that time, Potratz began selling directly to Bradley. Id. at 24-25. [T]wo weeks to a month after Potratz began dealing to Bradley, he realized Bradley was acquainted with Shelton after he stopped by Shelton's house. Id. at 26-27. After that point, Potratz began selling to both Shelton and Bradley, which continued for [m]ay be a couple months, six weeks. Id. at 31. Potratz later testified the arrangement ended in November 2008. Id. at 32. Shelton testified she met Bradley at the end of July, beginning of August, Trial Tr. Vol. 2, 22, and he moved in within three weeks of us meeting each other. Id. at 14. On cross-examination, she stated, Lindsey Shoultz moved in my apartment September 1. Joe Bradley moved in, I would say, two weeks after her, or mid-September. Id. at 36. She later confirmed her contact with Bradley started no earlier than sometime in August and ended by the end of October. Id. at 53. However, she clarified she saw Bradley up until the day I turned myself in to jail, which she believed was November 3, 2008. Id. at 54. While Potratz and Shelton were often imprecise in their estimation of dates, or even somewhat inconsistent, a review of their testimony confirms the record reflects a basis for the court's decision. See United States v. Payton, 636 F.3d 1027, 1046 (8th Cir.2011) (Co-conspirators' testimony may be sufficiently reliable evidence upon which the court may base its drug quantity calculation for sentencing purposes.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although the district court could have been more explicit, there can be little question, in light of the context, that the district court's drug quantity determination was based on the testimony at trial. United States v. Banks, 494 F.3d 681, 687-88 (8th Cir.2007). Notably, while Bradley hinges his argument regarding the beginning of the conspiracy on the date he moved into Shelton's apartment, Potratz's testimony demonstrates Potratz was dealing to Bradley two weeks to a month before that date. Trial Tr. Vol. 1, 26-27. Moreover, Potratz estimated Bradley was responsible for between nine and twelve ounces of cocaine, either of which would have placed him above the requisite amount for the offense level of 20. Id. at 73. Nor is Bradley's suggestion he withdrew from the conspiracy on October 22, 2008, supported by the record. See United States v. Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d 641, 672-73 (8th Cir.2008) (To withdraw from a conspiracy at common law, a conspirator must show not only that he ceased activities in furtherance of the conspiracy, but also that he either made a `clean breast' to the government or else communicated the fact of withdrawal to his co-conspirators in a manner reasonably calculated to reach them.). Indeed, both Potratz and Shelton testified they were involved with Bradley through November. In sum, because the record fails to convince us a mistake was made, see United States v. Hill, 638 F.3d 589, 593 (8th Cir.2011), we affirm the district court's drug quantity findings.