Opinion ID: 772527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: William Pearson

Text: 21 Pearson and Atkins were conspiracy leaders responsible for the narcotics activities in California. Pearson's sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred in finding that all of the drugs attributed to the conspiracy -- 1,054 grams of crack cocaine purchased by an undercover officer in the Twin Cities, and 2,477 grams of cocaine powder seized at the Twin Cities airport -- were reasonably foreseeable to Pearson as a California conspirator. Before a quantity of drugs may be attributed to a particular defendant, the sentencing court is required to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the transaction or activity involving those drugs was in furtherance of the conspiracy and either known to that defendant or reasonably foreseeable to him. United States v. Brown, 148 F.3d 1003, 1008 (8th Cir. 1998); see United States v. Tauil-Hernandez, 88 F.3d 576, 579 (8th Cir. 1996). 22 This contention was waived because Pearson's plea agreement provided that the base offense level applicable in this case based upon the quantities of cocaine and cocaine base ('crack') is Level 36, the base offense level used in determining his sentence. See United States v. Barrett, 173 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Durham, 963 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1023 (1992). In any event, the contention is without merit. In sentencing Pearson, the district court stated that it had heard the trial of the other defendants in this case and found that the crack cocaine sales in Minnesota were reasonably foreseeable relevant conduct. The court was entitled to consider relevant evidence introduced at the trial of co-defendant Louis. See United States v. Fetlow, 21 F.3d 243, 250 (8th Cir. 1994). The testimony of Atkins at that trial amply demonstrated that the crack cocaine sales, as well as the cocaine powder seized at the Twin Cities airport, were reasonably foreseeable to Pearson as a leader of the conspiracy. The district court's drug quantity finding was not clearly erroneous.