Opinion ID: 722405
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hutchinson

Text: 21 In judging Hutchinson guilty of Counts 8-15, the jury found him responsible for distributing 14.7 grams of cocaine base. In calculating Hutchinson's base offense level under the guidelines, however, the district court held him responsible for distributing between thirty-five and fifty grams of the narcotic. 22 The district court relied on the testimony of Hanley in determining the quantity of cocaine base that Hutchinson distributed. Hanley testified that after he moved back to Forrest Villas in December 1992, he observed Hutchinson selling cocaine on a daily basis. Hanley stated that Hutchinson had more customers than anybody else at the apartment complex. Hanley also testified that Hutchinson once told him that he had made $1,500 the previous evening. On cross-examination, however, Hanley conceded, I don't know how he made it. He just told me he made $1,500. Hanley further testified that he and Hutchinson once traveled to Cocoa, Florida, to purchase contraband; Hanley stated that he purchased one-sixteenth of an ounce of cocaine base and that he believed Hutchinson had purchased a half-ounce of the drug. Based largely on this testimony, the district court held Hutchinson responsible for distributing a gram [of cocaine base] a day for the eight-week period from December 1992 to February 1993. 23 We believe the district court clearly erred in holding Hutchinson responsible for distributing between thirty-five and fifty grams of cocaine base. Hanley's testimony provided an insufficient basis for the district court to estimate, with any degree of specificity, the quantity of drugs that Hutchinson sold. Hanley's statements that Hutchinson sold cocaine base every day, had more customers than anybody else out there, and earned $1,500 in one night only establish that Hutchinson sold an undetermined amount of cocaine base at the apartment complex. The court made no findings, and the record reveals no evidence, regarding the number of drug transactions Hutchinson engaged in during the period at issue or the amount of cocaine base involved per transaction. Such evidence constitutes a vital prerequisite to the method the district court used to sentence Hutchinson, and its absence compels us to direct the district court to make further factual findings on remand for resentencing. Butler, 41 F.3d at 1447-48; see also Lawrence, 47 F.3d at 1568.2. Albert Brown 24 Albert Brown was convicted for distributing 9.7 grams of cocaine base; the district court, however, held Brown accountable for distributing between 50 and 150 grams of the drug. 25 In making its sentencing determinations as to Brown, the district court relied on the testimony of Hanley. Hanley testified that Albert Brown sold cocaine base two or three days per week during the summer of 1992, and every day starting in December 1992. He stated that he saw Brown with a quarter, maybe a 16th of an ounce of cocaine base three or four times before December. Starting in December, roommates Brown and Hanley would buy dope together two or three times per week. On those occasions, [s]ometimes we'd buy, he'd spend a hundred, I'd spend a hundred. Sometimes less, sometimes more. Hanley testified that starting in December he was selling approximately one-sixteenth of an ounce of cocaine base every day or every other day. He believed that Albert Brown sold more than me because I used to see him with more money than I had and stuff, so he had to sell more than I do. Moreover, Hanley testified that Brown sold to more customers than he did. When asked, however, if Brown informed him about how much he made from cocaine sales, Hanley responded, He didn't tell me right off the top how much he was making every day; but, you know, I seen him making money. I couldn't just, I couldn't tell you an approximate figure. 26 Based on the above testimony, the district court determined that during an eight-week period from December 1992 to February 1993, Brown sold one gram of cocaine base per day. We hold, however, that Hanley's testimony provided an inadequate evidentiary basis for the district court to calculate, with any reasonable degree of specificity, the amount of contraband that Brown distributed. The district court's lack of specific, express findings concerning the frequency and volume of Brown's drug sales reinforces our conclusion. Therefore, we vacate this portion of Brown's sentence and remand for further factual findings. See Butler, 41 F.3d at 1447-48; Lawrence, 47 F.3d at 1568. 3. Kenyatta Brown 27 Kenyatta Brown asserts that the jury found him guilty of distributing four grams of cocaine base, and the district court clearly erred in holding him accountable for distributing thirty-seven grams of the drug. 28 Hanley testified that he saw Kenyatta Brown making cocaine sales in March and May of 1992. Hanley also testified that he sold cocaine base two or three days per week during the summer of 1992, and every day I was out there, [Kenyatta Brown] was out there. Hanley believed that Brown sold to more people than he did during this period. Hanley also stated that from December 1992 to February 1993, Brown's customer base was more than mine because he was out there longer than I was. Hanley also stated that he made drug sales with Brown on probably more than three occasions. 29 Based largely on the testimony outlined above, the district court made the following drug attribution calculation: 30 I'm going to score Mr. Kenyatta Brown at a level 30. It would seem to me that taking half of what I think the evidence by preponderance has shown that is in the summer a gram, two times a week times six weeks would be 12. So take half of that would be six; winter a gram, for eight weeks times seven days a week would be 56. Take half of that is 28. Add that together, that's 34. And with the amounts that were actually sold on one day, I'll add three, and that puts him over to a level 30, criminal history category 1. 31 We cannot sustain the district court's holding. The district court did not make specific findings concerning the number of drug transactions Brown engaged in during the periods at issue or the amount of contraband involved in those transactions, and the record is devoid of such evidence. Accordingly, we vacate this portion of Kenyatta Brown's sentence also and remand for further factual findings. See Butler, 41 F.3d at 1447-48; Lawrence, 47 F.3d at 1568. 4 CONCLUSION 32 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Graham's and Frazier's convictions and sentences. We vacate, however, the 21 U.S.C. § 841 convictions of Hutchinson, Griffin, Albert Brown, Kenyatta Brown, and Kenya Brown and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 33 AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 34