Opinion ID: 2671020
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether a Single Common Scheme or Plan Existed

Text: Our determination as to the standard employed by the district court does not however bring our analysis to an end ; Martin has a back-up contention. She says that under any standard -- even the district court's purported heightened one -- the court erred in finding no common scheme or plan. Our assessment of Martin's claimed error is deferential. To the extent that she -20- disputes the district court's findings of fact, we review only for clear error. See Carrero-Hernández, 643 F.3d at 349. Similarly, we give due deference to the court's application of the Guidelines to the facts. See Greig, 717 F.3d at 217. We start by saying a little more about the district court's holding. Relying on Elwell and Godin, the district court held that the September 2001 offense and the October 2001 offense were not part of a common scheme or plan because, notwithstanding the fact that both offenses stemmed from the same law enforcement investigation, there was no agreement with Ms. Martin at the first deal that a second one would follow. According to the district court, to squeeze multiple drug transactions into a 'common scheme or plan,' the series of transactions has to be agreed to at the outset. In Martin's case, it found the October 11th deal was a separate transaction, arranged through a different supplier, which was not planned, discussed, or contemplated at the first transaction. Martin's main quibble is with the court's factual finding that there was no agreement between her and Special Agent Duquette regarding a second transaction. She claims the record evidence, in particular Special Agent Carr's13 evidentiary hearing testimony and his MDEA report, establishes that there was in fact an arrangement 13 To remind the reader, Special Agent Carr was an MDEA agent who was involved in the Hancock County investigation that led to Martin's 2001 convictions. -21- between her and Duquette at the time of the September 27th drug deal that a second transaction would follow. Martin points to the following testimony. On direct examination by defense counsel, Special Agent Carr was asked whether there was any contact between Martin and Special Agent Duquette after the September 27th purchase. Carr responded in the affirmative and, when asked to elaborate, he stated: After the initial purchase from Ms. Martin on -- in the end of September, we had Agent Duquette place a phone call to Ms. Martin and arrangements to make -- to make another purchase. We fail to see how this testimony supports the notion that a second deal was discussed or contemplated, much less agreed to by Martin, before or during the commission of the September 2001 offense. Carr's testimony explicitly states it was not until after the initial purchase that Special Agent Duquette was instructed to call Martin to arrange a second deal. Despite Special Agent Carr's unambiguous testimony, Martin thinks one can infer that a phone call was in fact made on or near September 27th. For support she points out that not only did a subsequent deal ultimately follow, but Duquette showed up right before Martin got off work on October 11th, which (according to Martin) implies that Duquette was aware of Martin's work schedule. Martin's hypothesis that the call happened on or about September 27th is certainly plausible but, unfortunately for her, there are equally plausible competing -22- inferences. Perhaps Duquette did not call Martin until the morning of October 11th (or even a couple days before) at which time arrangements were made for Duquette to meet Martin at the end of her shift. Or, also conceivable, is a scenario in which Duquette -- knowing Martin's work schedule based on information gathered by surveillance -- never called Martin and simply surprised her in person on the 11th. There is no need to kick around any more possibilities. A district court's plausible interpretation of the facts cannot be rejected on clear error review just because the record might sustain a conflicting interpretation. See In re O'Donnell, 728 F.3d at 45. Carr's testimony does not help Martin. Special Agent Carr's MDEA report for the September 2001 offense, which Martin also draws our attention to, provides no better support. She claims the MDEA report, which was written after the September heroin purchase but before the October one, is proof of an existing agreement. Martin relies on the following language from the report: Duquette . . . would be acting in an undercover capacity as a buyer of heroin and would be introduced to Martin for future drug transactions without the use of a [confidential informant]. This also does nothing for Martin's cause. It in no way establishes that Martin herself agreed to, planned, or considered a second drug transaction at the time of the first. Rather what it does show is the MDEA's plan to try and engage with Martin in future heroin purchases. What the district -23- court logically looked for was the defendant's intention to engage in additional crimes as part of a larger scheme or plan. The fact that Martin was targeted by a single law enforcement investigation is irrelevant to her intent to commit more than one offense with Duquette.14 Not only does the evidence cited by Martin (Carr's testimony and the MDEA report) fail to convince, but other evidence before the district court works against her. For one, there was Special Agent Duquette's report for the September 2001 offense. This very detailed two-page report chronicles the events that transpired on September 27, 2001, but does not mention, or even hint at, another transaction with Martin being in the works. Also in front of the district court was Special Agent Ralph Bridges's report regarding the October 2001 offense.15 According to this report, Special Agent Duquette was going to attempt to make 14 There is somewhat contradictory evidence regarding the MDEA's plan going forward after September 27th. Carr, at one point, testified that the plan was actually to try and get Martin out of the picture. He testified that Special Agent Duquette, on September 27th, spoke with Richardson directly about getting more heroin. Carr explained that they were trying to get Martin out of the fray and deal with Richardson directly. As Carr said, the typical practice of the agents was to try to find the source and cut out the middleman, i.e., Martin. This evidence is of no help to Martin and not important to our analysis. For one, it cuts against Martin's theory that a second deal was in the works. But more importantly, as we said, our focus is on the defendant's intentions and not law enforcement's. 15 Special Agent Bridges was part of the MDEA surveillance team involved in the September 27 and October 11 transactions. -24- contact with Nicole Martin on October 11, 2001 (emphasis added). Bridges's report further states that when Duquette approached Martin for more heroin, Martin stated she did not have anything right now, but to come back in an hour, and she could help [Special Agent] Duquette out then. That Duquette was going to attempt to contact Martin on October 11th, and that Martin did not have anything -- be it heroin or a supplier -- in place when the two met cuts against Martin's claim that she and Duquette had previously agreed to meet for a second drug transaction. If anything can be inferred, it is that Martin was caught off-guard by Special Agent Duquette's October visit. In addition to the dearth of evidence tending to support the existence of an agreement for -- or expectancy of -- a second transaction, there was other evidence bolstering the district court's determination that Martin's two prior convictions were not related by a single common scheme or plan. Namely, there is a variety of factual dissimilarities between the September 2001 offense and the October 2001 offense. The drug deals occurred in two different towns, two weeks apart. Martin obtained the drugs from distinct sources, whom each charged different amounts for the drugs. The means by which Martin herself was compensated were also at odds. In connection with the first deal, her payoff was a bag of heroin. For the second deal, it was $50 cash. -25- Given the above, we have no trouble concluding that there is enough evidence on the record to sustain the district court's factual finding that Martin had not agreed to, planned, or anticipated the October 2001 offense prior to or during the commission of the September 2001 offense. This is a plausible interpretation of the facts; we will not second-guess it. Moreover, the district court did not clearly err when it determined that Martin's two offenses were not part of a single common scheme or plan and therefore should be counted separately. There was ample record support for this conclusion, as chronicled above. The district court properly sentenced her as a career offender pursuant to § 4B1.1(a) of the Guidelines.