Opinion ID: 592207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: gary caton

Text: 22 Gary Caton was indicted by a grand jury on three counts charging him with three violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) for illegal distribution, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The charges arose from three undercover government purchases of cocaine from Caton in 1989. Those purchases included two transactions totalling one-eighth ounce of cocaine sold to a confidential informant; the sale of one-quarter ounce from Caton's car repair shop a few days later to the informant; and the sale of two ounces, again at the repair shop, to an undercover government agent about a month later. Caton pleaded guilty to all three charges. Probation Officer Mason prepared a presentence report following Caton's guilty plea. After Caton made numerous objections to the report, a number of paragraphs from the presentence report were deleted. 23 The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether certain alleged prior criminal activities mentioned in the presentence report were relevant conduct within the meaning of Guidelines § 1B1.3(a)(1). The conduct relied upon by the probation officer involved 16 to 56 kilograms of cocaine that were apparently processed through Caton's home with Caton's knowledge in conjunction with several drug rings including one led by Morris Woodard. The court held that [t]he definition of relevant conduct requires a link between the past conduct and the count of conviction. In this case the other activities are too remote, in time, involvement and character, to meet this standard. At the end of the hearing, however, the district court indicated that it was considering an upward departure. 24 Caton was sentenced on the basis of an offense level of fourteen and a criminal history category of six to imprisonment for forty-six months with three years' supervised release and a $150 special assessment. The court found that an upward departure from the recommended criminal history category to the next higher level would result in too lenient a sentence. The court stated: 25 [T]his Court has examined the next highest criminal history category and feels that it is too lenient in this situation. The next highest criminal history category would be a two, which would call for an 18 to 24-month range. And in the opinion of this Court this is simply not enough time considering the nature and the extent of the defendant's past conduct. 26 .... 27 So based upon the defendant's conduct as documented in the presentence report and supplemented in the evidentiary hearing, the Court will depart above the applicable guideline range. 28 .... 29 I think departing anything lower than the category six would result in a sentence which is not serious--severe enough. I think this is a case which requires a serious sentence. And I took it a step at a time. I went from three to four to five until I felt comfortable with six. 30 (Citing United States v. Kennedy, 893 F.2d 825 (6th Cir.1990)). The court's determination was based on the fact that Caton was a player in the distribution of large amounts of cocaine. 4 The court relied on information from the presentence report, the Kentucky State Police, an identified witness, a confidential informant, and Caton himself. Caton objected to use of the information from the confidential informant because he felt he should have had the opportunity to learn the informant's identity and test the reliability of the informant's testimony by cross-examination. The discussion of the confrontation issue also relates to defendant Woodard, and we also set out the factual setting as to Woodard before beginning our analysis.