Opinion ID: 2999001
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Type and Quantity

Text: We reject Dunn’s challenges to the district court’s findings that the substance in question was crack cocaine and that he was responsible for distributing more than 500 grams. Dunn’s only argument is that Judge Lozano erred in crediting the testimony of Townsend in making these findings, as evidenced by alleged inconsistencies in Townsend’s testimony. We review the district court’s factual conclusions as to drug type and quantity for clear error. See United States v. Delatorre, 406 F.3d 863, 866 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Drug quantity and whether uncharged offenses are relevant conduct are questions of fact, which before Booker we reviewed for clear error, and still do”) (internal citations omitted); United States v. Parker, 245 F.3d 974, 977 (7th Cir. 2001) (“We review the district court's drug type determination for clear error”). No. 05-4217 Page 3 As Dunn’s counsel conceded at oral argument, he faces a “huge hurdle” in demonstrating that this court should reverse the district court’s credibility findings. See United States v. Blalock, 321 F.3d 686, 689 (7th Cir. 2003) (“we defer to the district court’s determination of witness credibility, which can virtually never be clear error”) (quoting United States v. Noble, 246 F.3d 946, 953 (7th Cir. 2001)). Here, Dunn fails to surmount this hurdle as he only alleges minor inconsistencies in Townsend’s testimony that do not undermine the district court’s findings as to drug type and quantity. In concluding that the drug involved was crack cocaine, the district court relied on multiple witnesses with personal knowledge, including Dunn’s partner and one of his customers. The court also explained at least three different methods by which it could logically conclude, based on the available evidence, that Dunn was responsible for more than 500 grams of crack cocaine. Thus, Dunn’s type and quantity arguments fail.