Opinion ID: 1452483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chavez: Calculation of Drug Quantity

Text: Chavez appeals from the district court's calculation of the quantity of drugs involved in the offense, arguing that the district court did not explicitly support its finding that the drug amounts in the six other dismissed counts should be included as part of the same course of conduct for sentencing purposes. Because Chavez forfeited this issue by failing to raise it below, we review for plain error. United States v. Lee, 399 F.3d 864, 866 (7th Cir.2005). Under that standard, the defendant has the burden of proving an error that is obvious and that affects substantial rights. Id. Under § 1B1.3(a)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines, all acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction should be considered relevant conduct for sentencing purposes. Relevant conduct is factored into the Guidelines sentencing calculations as if the defendant had been convicted of that conduct. United States v. White, 519 F.3d 342, 347 (7th Cir.2008). When the district court aggregates drug quantities from unconvicted relevant conduct for purposes of calculating a defendant's base offense level, we require that the court explicitly state and support, either at the sentencing hearing or (preferably) in a written statement of reasons, its finding that the unconvicted activities bore the necessary relation to the convicted offense. United States v. Arroyo, 406 F.3d 881, 889 (7th Cir.2005) (citing United States v. Bacallao, 149 F.3d 717, 720 (7th Cir.1998)). That said, if it is clear that the district court took into consideration and adopted the facts contained in the presentence report (PSR), as well as the government's reasoning concerning those facts, we have upheld the court's decision to include the unconvicted activities as relevant conduct, even without express findings. Id. (citing Bacallao, 149 F.3d at 720). Because uncharged drug quantities can add months or years to a defendant's advisory guidelines range, we require that the evidence relied upon by the district court at sentencing must bear sufficient indicia of reliability. United States v. Wilson, 502 F.3d 718, 721-22 (7th Cir.2007) (citing United States v. Acosta, 85 F.3d 275, 282 (7th Cir.1996)). In Chavez's case, there must be reliable evidence to support the district court's conclusion that the unconvicted transactions were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the convicted transactions. Two or more offenses are part of a common scheme or plan if they are connected by at least one common factor, such as common victims, common accomplices, common purpose, or similar modus operandi. Bacallao, 149 F.3d at 719 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2), cmt. n. 9). However, section 1B1.3(a)(2) must not be read to encompass any offense that is similar in kind to the offense of conviction but that does not bear the required relationship to that offense. Id. at 719-20. In assessing whether there is a strong relationship between the unconvicted conduct and the convicted offense, courts should consider whether the government has demonstrated a significant similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity. Id. at 719. Chavez relies heavily on Bacallao in arguing that the court erred by not explicitly stating its finding that the unconvicted activity bore the necessary relation to the convicted offense. In Bacallao, the district court sentenced the defendant based on a quantity of 3.3 kilograms of cocaine without making an independent finding that the additional quantity of drugs was relevant conduct and instead relying entirely on the information contained in the PSR. We held that, under those particular circumstances, the PSR itself must explain how the additional quantities were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction. Finding that the PSR lacked any dates, common accomplices, or detail concerning how the cocaine was acquired or distributed, we vacated and remanded for resentencing. Bacallao, 149 F.3d at 720-22. As in Bacallao, the district court made no explicit findings linking the additional unconvicted drug transactions to the offense of conviction and relied entirely on the PSR. At the sentencing hearing, the court stated: The probation office prepared the advisory guidelines correctly using the current guideline manual. The calculations take into account all acts and omissions that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction. In the written statement of reasons, the district court specifically stated that it adopted the PSR without change. It further noted that the probation office properly prepared the PSR using the Guidelines, and that in accordance with § 1B1.3(a)(1) and (2), the acts that were part of the same conduct were taken into account in the Guidelines calculation. Finally, the court stated: The base offense level is 32 pursuant to § 2D1.1(c)(4), because the offense, including relevant conduct, involved at least 596.17 grams of methamphetamine. Unlike Bacallao, the PSR here contains specific information about the participants, dates, amounts, and prices of the charged drug transactions. According to the PSR, on seven separate occasions over a seven-month period, Chavez arranged a drug transaction which was carried out by either Chavez or Panaigua-Verdugo. One of the two defendants delivered the following amounts of methamphetamine to an undercover agent: 14.07 grams on April 19, 2006; 27.44 grams on April 25, 2006; 27.33 grams on May 12, 2006; 27.69 grams on August 24, 2006; 84.36 grams on September 15, 2006; 165.68 grams on September 26, 2006; and 246.10 grams on November 14, 2006. The undercover agent arranged the amount and method of payment directly with Chavez. All of this information was provided by the undercover agent and the Wisconsin crime laboratory which analyzed the drugs and determined the weight of each purchase. Statements by Panaigua-Verdugo corroborated the information. Chavez had the opportunity to review the PSR and failed to object to its contents. This evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding. The PSR establishes that Chavez worked with a common accomplice over a short period of time for the same purposethe sale of increasingly larger quantities of methamphetamine. The transactions were repetitious in method and motive. The information contained within the PSR was sufficiently reliable and contained extensive information supported by witness testimony. Chavez gives no reason for discrediting the information contained within the PSR, and did not contradict the evidence before the district court. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding that the other drug transactions were relevant conduct for sentencing purposes.