Opinion ID: 809227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mayfield’s Sentence

Text: The district court sentenced Mayfield to 322 months in prison. This was based on an offense level of 34 under the Sentencing Guidelines, triggered because the judge found that the offense involved between 15 and 50 kilograms of cocaine. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(3). The district court then applied a two-level enhancement to Mayfield’s sentence because it found that he obstructed justice by committing perjury at trial. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(14)(D). Mayfield now challenges both the calculation of his base offense level and the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice. We review a district court’s factual findings about drug quantities for clear error. United States v. Longstreet, 567 F.3d 911, 924 (7th Cir. 2009). We also review for clear error a finding that a defendant committed perjury. United States v. Spagnola, 632 F.3d 981, 988 (7th Cir. 2011). To find clear error, we must be “left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Panaigua-Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722, 724 (7th Cir. 2008). Finally, we review de novo the adequacy of the district court’s explanation of his findings. United States v. Sheikh, 367 F.3d 683, 686 (7th Cir. 2004).
For sentencing purposes, Mayfield is responsible for whatever amount of cocaine he knew (or should have known) was the object of his conspiracy. See United States v. McKenzie, 656 F.3d 688, 691 (7th Cir. 2011). If the Nos. 10-3725, 10-3726, 11-2262 & 11-2439 17 amount was 15 or more kilograms, a base offense level of 34 was appropriate. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(3). At trial, the primary thrust of Mayfield’s defense was that he had actually teamed up with Potts to steal cocaine from Gomez, and that he never really intended to rob any stash house. Recall that Gomez claimed to transport only about 6 to 8 kilograms of cocaine every month. Because Gomez was his sole target, Mayfield argues that he never thought to recover an amount larger than 8 or so kilograms of cocaine, and so he does not meet the 15-kilogram minimum requirement for a base offense level of 34 under the Guidelines. This defense has gaping holes; it seems nonsensical that an ATF informant (Potts) would hatch a scheme to rob an undercover ATF agent (Gomez) of a quantity of drugs that never really existed. It also strains credulity to imagine how Mayfield could have agreed with Potts to rob Gomez without explaining the real plan to his co-defendants. Sure enough, the jury rejected Mayfield’s version of events. We know the jury rejected it because Mayfield was convicted of conspiracy, which required a finding of an agreement with his co-conspirators—and conspiracy is legally impossible by agreement with a government informant (like Potts) alone. See United States v. Duff, 76 F.3d 122, 127 (7th Cir. 1996). The jury was properly instructed on this rule of law: “A defendant cannot enter into an agreement solely with, or join a conspiracy solely with, confidential informant Jeffrey Potts or undercover agent David Gomez.” Thus, it is disingenuous for Mayfield to argue that the jury never 18 Nos. 10-3725, 10-3726, 11-2262 & 11-2439 rejected his defense about an agreement with Potts to rob Gomez. They necessarily rejected it when they found him guilty of conspiracy. In robbing the fictitious stash house, then, how much cocaine did Mayfield expect to gain? There is suf- ficient evidence that he expected to recover more than 15 kilograms. In several conversations between Gomez and Mayfield, Gomez referred multiple times to an amount of at least 20 kilograms of cocaine stored in the house. Mayfield never said anything to indicate he thought there would be a lesser amount. So there was sufficient evidence for the district court to find that Mayfield met the 15-kilogram minimum for a base level calculation of 34. But Mayfield argues that, even if there was sufficient evidence, the district court failed to state adequate grounds for its finding. We have held that, at sentencing, “a court must make an explicit finding as to the drug quantity and offense level and how it arrived at the sentence.” United States v. Fudge, 325 F.3d 910, 920 (7th Cir. 2003). The district court did not run afoul of this rule. First, the judge acknowledged having reviewed the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), which detailed the amount of drugs implicated in the offense and provided Guidelines suggestions. The judge also heard both parties present their arguments; Mayfield’s attorney basically re-hashed the same implausible defense presented at trial about a supposed agreement with Potts to rob Gomez of 6 to 9 kilograms. When Mayfield’s attorney finished, the district judge stated, “Okay. All right. Nos. 10-3725, 10-3726, 11-2262 & 11-2439 19 I agree that the 6 to 9 was what Mr. Mayfield testified his intention [was], but the jury didn’t buy it, and frankly I really didn’t buy it either, . . . so I’m going to find that it’s 34.” The only evidence Mayfield had of the 6 to 9 kilogram amount was his own testimony at trial; no other evidence supported his contention that he had made a secret agreement with Potts to steal that amount. So we are satisfied that by explicitly rejecting this argument, and by acknowledging the PSR suggestions, the judge adequately explained how it arrived at the base offense level. In sum, we find no clear error in the district court’s sentencing Mayfield at a base offense level of 34.
of Justice The district judge ordered a two-level enhancement of Mayfield’s sentence for obstruction of justice because he found that Mayfield perjured himself at trial. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(14)(D). Specifically, the judge found that Mayfield lied about his plan to rob Gomez, stating, [Mayfield] testified, which would have been a defense to the indictment. Now, he testified that he committed a different crime or he intended to commit a different crime, but it was a defense, and the jury didn’t buy it, so it’s clear that—in my mind, anyway—that he did not testify truthfully, so I’m going to enhance two for that. For the enhancement to stand, the defendant must have wilfully provided false testimony about a material 20 Nos. 10-3725, 10-3726, 11-2262 & 11-2439 matter. United States v. Johnson, 612 F.3d 889, 893 (7th Cir. 2010). Mayfield argues that his testimony was not false and that it did not even concern a matter material to the case. First, materiality. There is no doubt that the subject on which Mayfield testified—who he planned to steal from—was material. It went to the heart of the case. We have already explained that if jurors had accepted his testimony, they could not have found him guilty of conspiracy, since it is legally impossible to conspire with a government informant alone. So any false testimony on the subject was certainly material. Likewise, we needn’t linger on whether the testimony was false. For reasons we have already discussed at length, Mayfield’s defense about a secret plan with Potts to rob Gomez was full of holes. His story directly conflicted with the testimony of others and with the recordings that suggested a conspiracy to rob the fictitious stash house. But we are not quite finished, because Mayfield also claims the judge failed to adequately explain a finding of perjury. It is true that to apply an enhancement for obstruction of justice, “the district court must make independent findings necessary to establish all of three factual predicates for a finding of perjury.” United States v. Savage, 505 F.3d 754, 763 (7th Cir. 2007). But this requirement is not as stringent as Mayfield suggests. We have only reversed obstruction enhancements for inadequate findings when the sentencing judge presented a bare-bones explanation, such as, “I thought your testimony Nos. 10-3725, 10-3726, 11-2262 & 11-2439 21 was riddled with inaccuracies and lies.” United States v. McGiffen, 267 F.3d 581, 591 (7th Cir. 2001). Such a thin explanation leaves a defendant with a very poor idea of how exactly he perjured himself. So although some specificity is required at sentencing, “separate findings are not strictly necessary so long as the court determined that the defendant lied to the judge and jury about matters crucial to the question of the defendant’s guilt.” United States v. White, 240 F.3d 656, 662 (7th Cir. 2001). And that is exactly what the court did in this case. The judge clearly stated that the perjury involved Mayfield’s defense, and as we have already noted, that defense went to the heart of Mayfield’s case; it dealt directly with the question of his guilt. We thus find no error in the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice.