Opinion ID: 2998114
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hill’s Issues

Text: First, Hill argues that the record does not support the jury’s finding that he was a part of the cocaine distribution conspiracy because the conspiracy ended when the police seized crack cocaine from Wendy Whennen. This argument is without merit. The charged conspiracy’s purpose was the distribution of narcotics in the Joliet area. The fact that the government seized 1,691 grams of crack cocaine from the home of Reed’s girlfriend did not end the conspiracy. The main criminal objective of the conspiracy had not been abandoned after this single drug seizure. See United States v. McKinney, 954 F.2d. 471, 475 (7th Cir. 1992). Also, Hill 8 Nos. 04-1176, 04-1177, 04-1231 & 04-2009 continued to assist the conspiracy in several ways, including intimidating Whennen, a potential government witness. The evidence sufficiently established Hill’s role as an enforcer in the drug conspiracy. Second, Hill challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to sever the possession with intent to distribute count of the indictment. He argues that there was very little evidence presented at trial that connected him to drugs, and though he was eventually acquitted on the possession count, the evidence presented to support it prejudiced the jury with respect to the other charges. We review a denial of a motion to sever for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Smith, 308 F.3d 726, 736 (7th Cir. 2002). The count at issue is of the same character and is based on the same series of transactions as the other counts of the indictment. FED. R. CRIM. P. 8(a). The evidence presented in support of this count did not prejudice Hill. The overall evidence showed that Hill was, in fact, involved in drugs. Different people play different roles in a drug conspiracy, be it supplier, lookout, courier, or enforcer. The indictment charged, and the evidence showed, that Hill played the role of an enforcer in this particular conspiracy. The fact that he may not have had as much direct contact with the actual distribution of cocaine as others does not mean that he was not part of the overall conspiracy. Also, the fact that he was acquitted on the possession with intent to distribute count shows that the jury was able to give separate consideration to the various counts of the indictment and the evidence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever. Finally, Hill challenges his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds. The district court, operating prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), treated the Guidelines as mandatory and made findings of fact that enhanced Hill’s sentence. This was error. Nos. 04-1176, 04-1177, 04-1231 & 04-2009 9 We order a limited remand in accordance with the procedure outlined in United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005).