Opinion ID: 2709582
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lund and Lawler Are Liable for the Direct Dis-

Text: tribution of Heroin Causing Death Finally, we address the most straightforward application of the statute to Lund and Lawler who—while occupying relatively low-level roles in the organization as a whole—had perhaps the closest connection to the deaths of customers who used drugs distributed by the conspiracy. Lund purchased heroin for his own use 24 Nos. 10-2173, 10-2176, 10-2355, 11-1024 & 11-1510 from Stewart, but also distributed larger quantities to customers and associates at the street level. Lawler was even further down in the distribution chain, purchasing small quantities from distributors primarily for herself while reselling some to friends. But whatever their role in the conspiracy, the district court found that both Lund and Lawler directly provided users with the doses that ended their lives. Lund coordinated the sales of heroin that killed Goetzke and Knuth, and Lawler sold the drugs that killed Topczewski. There can be little doubt that Congress intended the mandatory minimum penalty to apply to Lund and Lawler for their direct distribution of deadly heroin doses to users. This penalty applies without regard for any special care the defendant took, the reputation for safety of the controlled substance, or the hypersensitivity of the victim because “risk is inherent in [a controlled substance,] . . . [and so] persons who distribute it do so at their peril.” Robinson, 167 F.3d at 831. So we affirm the district court’s application of the twenty-year penalty to Lund and Lawler. They also challenge the trial court’s factual findings related to the deaths of certain users, but as discussed below, these challenges are without merit.
by Lund Lund contends that the district court erred in finding that he was still a member of the conspiracy when Nos. 10-2173, 10-2176, 10-2355, 25 11-1024 & 11-1510 Goetzke and Knuth died of overdoses. Lund argues that the mandatory minimum should not apply because the deaths occurred after he had withdrawn from the conspiracy following a dispute with Stewart. “In order to withdraw from a conspiracy, a defendant must cease his activity in the conspiracy and take an affirmative act to defeat or disavow the con- spiracy’s purpose, either by making a full confession to the authorities or by communicating his withdrawal in a manner reasonably calculated to inform his co- conspirators.” United States v. Bullis, 77 F.3d 1553, 1562 (7th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we have noted that “[i]nactivity alone does not constitute withdrawal; to withdraw from a conspiracy, the defendant must terminate completely his active involvement in the conspiracy, as well as take affirmative steps to defeat or disavow the conspiracy’s purpose.” United States v. Hargrove, 508 F.3d 445, 449 (7th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. Wilson, 134 F.3d 855, 863 (7th Cir. 1998) (“The withdrawal must be complete and in good faith.”). Lund says he and Stewart had a falling-out after Stewart swindled him on a sale of heroin in Decem- ber 2007. Stewart allegedly drove off without giving Lund the full amount he had purchased. Lund responded by tricking Stewart in a later transaction, paying him less than the full amount due. After this incident Lund was imprisoned for five months on unrelated charges. When he was released, Stewart refused to contact or 26 Nos. 10-2173, 10-2176, 10-2355, 11-1024 & 11-1510 work with Lund directly because of the dispute over the prior sale and Lund contends that this rupture constituted a break in his participation in the conspiracy. The district court did not err in declining to deem this disagreement an effective withdrawal. Soon after Lund was released from jail, he coordinated sales of heroin between the conspiracy and customers. In addition to more heroin, Lund received a cash cut of the sale after referring Goetzke to Stewart. It may be true that Stewart refused to speak with or take money directly from Lund because of their falling-out. But this does not represent a withdrawal. Lund never fully terminated his involvement in the scheme but rather continued his active—if strained—participation. Lund’s counsel questioned how a conspirator can legitimately extricate himself once an organization’s leadership has expelled him. But even if this disagreement could be considered an expulsion, we need not entertain the hypothetical here. Withdrawal requires affirmative steps by a conspirator to defeat or disavow the conspiracy. Lund never confessed to authorities or provided any notice to coconspirators of his purported withdrawal. To the contrary, Lund’s efforts to contact and work with Stewart indicate that he wanted back in even as he continued to be held at arm’s length. Even after Goetzke’s overdose, Lund continued to connect new customers to the conspiracy, resulting in the death of Knuth one month later, and so we affirm Lund’s sentence. Nos. 10-2173, 10-2176, 10-2355, 27 11-1024 & 11-1510
Fatal Doses to Topczewski Lawler claims that the district court wrongly determined that she provided Jeffrey Topczewski with the heroin that killed him. In reaching its conclusion, the trial court relied in part on portions of a presentence report compiled from police interviews with Jeffrey Topczewski’s sister Jennifer and a friend, Kallie Klappa. Lawler contends that Jennifer Topczewski and Klappa’s accounts were inconsistent because initially they did not inculpate Lawler and they only implicated her in exchange for dramatic sentencing reductions from the government. Lawler also contends that the district court should not have solely relied on the representations in the presentence report without evaluating the witnesses’ sworn in person testimony. In addition to the testimony of Jennifer and Klappa, there are two independent sources of evidence that Lawler does not rebut. First, Lawler admitted that she was providing heroin to Jeffrey Topczewski a few days before his death. Second, telephone records corroborate that Lawler sold the fatal doses of heroin to Jeffrey the night before he died. These records show a call from Jeffrey’s residence to Jennifer, followed by a call from his residence to Lawler. Later, Lawler dialed Jeffrey’s home phone. This evidence corroborates the presentence report’s account that Jeffrey asked Jennifer for Lawler’s phone number to secure heroin that night. Lawler returned the call to complete the sale. 28 Nos. 10-2173, 10-2176, 10-2355, 11-1024 & 11-1510 Lawler is correct that Jeffrey had other sources who could have given him heroin and that the telephone records are not conclusive proof of a drug sale. But the doubts Lawler raises do not rise to the level of clear error. The evidence in the record is sufficient to support a finding by preponderance of the evidence that the “death resulting” enhancement applies to Lawler. Therefore we affirm Lawler’s sentence. B. Stewart’s Guilty Plea was Voluntary and his Sentence was Reasonable Stewart challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea as well as his 300-month sentence. Both challenges are without merit. A guilty plea must be entered knowingly and voluntarily in order to be valid. To ensure that a guilty plea is knowing, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b) requires that a district court “inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands” the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the possible sentencing range, and the fact that, by pleading guilty, the defendant waives certain constitutional rights. In addition, a “court must address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement).” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2). Stewart’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Stewart signed a written plea agreement containing an Nos. 10-2173, 10-2176, 10-2355, 29 11-1024 & 11-1510 unambiguous factual stipulation encompassing the government’s charges in the complaint. In the district court’s Rule 11 colloquy, Stewart affirmed his understanding of the plea agreement, the factual stipulation, and the penalties he faced, as well as the government’s charges against him. Stewart further contends that the district court erred in calculating his guideline range by making him accountable for three to ten kilograms of heroin without holding an evidentiary hearing. This argument must also fail because the drug quantity did not play a part in the calculation of Stewart’s base offense level. The presentence report calculated the offense level by applying the enhancement for drug distribution offenses resulting in death under § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. As discussed above, this enhancement applies to Stewart and there were no other errors in the district court’s calculation of a guideline range from 360 years to life imprisonment. The district court appropriately weighed sentencing factors, arrived at a reasonable below-guideline sentence of 300 months, and we therefore affirm the district court’s determination.