Opinion ID: 741883
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Willie Edwards's Involvement in Every Part of the Organization

Text: 30 Willie next contends that the record fails to support the district court's determination that he was involved in every part of the organization beginning in February 1988, and lasting for a two and a half year period, up until at least September 20, 1990. We also review this factual determination of the sentencing court for clear error. House, 110 F.3d at 1283. In order to find that the district court committed clear error in making this factual finding we must, once again, be left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Herrera, 54 F.3d at 356 (internal quotation omitted). 31 At sentencing the trial judge found that Willie was very heavily involved at every phase of the conspiracy from February 1988, until September 20, 1990, at which time an FBI wiretap recorded a phone conversation of Willie's that proved he was still involved in the conspiracy. 2 As the trial court found that Willie was involved in every phase of the organization during this period, it properly concluded that he was accountable for the total amount of drugs the conspiracy dealt during that time, 47 kilos. Willie argues that this finding completely overlooks the testimony that Lorri gave in court as the chief witness against Willie. In support of this contention Willie first states that Lorri testified that he was not involved in the mixing or the cutting of the heroin. He also may not have been involved in sweeping the floors or turning out the lights, but this alone would also not be sufficient to prove that he was not involved at every phase of the ... drug trafficking organization. (Sentencing Hr'g Tr. of May 28, 1996 at 5.) He additionally points out that Lorri testified that Willie was only seldomly involved in packaging drugs. Willie also argues that he was not involved in the conspiracy any more than any of the other workers whom Lee controlled and that the reason he was frequently at Lee's house was due to his familial relationship and addiction to heroin. He asserts that he never agreed to be part of the greater conspiracy and that Lee did not trust him to sell drugs because of his addiction. We have previously stated: 32 Once a conspiracy is shown to exist evidence that establishes a particular defendant's participation beyond a reasonable doubt, although the connection between defendant and conspiracy is slight, is sufficient to convict. The [G]overnment may establish a defendant's knowing participation in a single conspiracy by offering evidence that: [t]he parties to the agreement were aware that others were participating in the scheme. The coconspirators must have knowingly embraced a common criminal objective.... However, there is no requirement that the participants in the plan personally know the individuals involved ... [a]s long as the conspiracy continues and its goal is to achieve a common objective. 33 United States v. Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476, 1505 (7th Cir.1990). 34 Despite Willie's arguments, after reviewing the evidence in its totality we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the sentencing court committed a mistake. The activities in which Willie, the two-time loser, engaged in furtherance of the conspiracy, the length of time that he participated in the conspiracy, and the knowledge that he had about the scope of the conspiracy, all support the district court's determination that he was involved in every phase of the conspiracy. The evidence and testimony presented before the court clearly demonstrate that Willie: occasionally picked up supplies of heroin for Lee; sold significant amounts of narcotics at an apartment owned by Lee; 3 alternated living at each of Lee's two houses depending on where Lee was currently operating the drug trafficking organization; answered phone calls at these houses and made arrangements with the callers for them to purchase drugs from him at specific locations; 4 knew when large shipments of narcotics had been obtained and informed callers of this information; informed drug purchasers of independent contractors that the callers could also purchase drugs from; 5 and, occasionally helped package small quantities of the drugs to be sold. 35 Furthermore,  '[i]t is not the task of this appellate court to reconsider the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses.'  United States v. Hickok, 77 F.3d 992, 1006 (7th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Mojica, 984 F.2d 1426, 1435 (7th Cir.1993)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1701, 134 L.Ed.2d 800 (1996). The sentencing judge's factual determination that [the defendant] was part of the larger conspiracy and responsible [for the entire amount] ... is entitled to great deference on review and should not be disturbed unless it is without foundation. United States v. Blas, 947 F.2d 1320, 1328 (7th Cir.1991) (internal quotation omitted); see United States v. Harty, 930 F.2d 1257, 1266 (7th Cir.1991) (appellate court will not reweigh the evidence). Therefore, the district court's determination was not clearly erroneous in its finding that Willie was involved in every phase of the conspiracy and that the entire amount of narcotics was reasonably foreseeable to him. Accordingly, the district court correctly held Willie accountable for the entire amount of drugs attributable to the conspiracy. 36