Opinion ID: 656603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: McMillen

Text: 14 The application notes to Section 2D1.4 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines provide: 15 Where there is no drug seizure or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the sentencing judge shall approximate the quantity of the controlled substance. In making this determination, the judge may consider, for example, the price generally obtained for the controlled substance, financial or other records, similar transactions in controlled substances by the defendant, and the size or capability of any laboratory involved. 16 U.S.S.G. § 2D1.4, Application Note 2 (1991). A district court's determination of the quantity of drugs involved in an offense for sentencing purposes is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard. Centracchio, 977 F.2d at 1065 (citing Buggs, 904 F.2d at 1078). A defendant convicted of a drug distribution conspiracy is held accountable, for purposes of sentencing, for the acts of co-conspirators if those acts 1) were reasonably foreseeable to the defendant and 2) were in furtherance of the conspiracy. Edwards, 945 F.2d at 1392; Price, 988 F.2d at 720. 17 McMillen contests the district court's finding that distribution of 1,280 grams of heroin was reasonably foreseeable to him during his participation in the conspiracy. McMillen contends that there were a number of plausible alternatives, [n]one ... would be more likely than not the correct one. McMillen's Opening Brief, at 14-15. He argues that the district court averaged the eleven largest transactions to derive the 160 grams per week figure, although the court had a duty to err on the side of caution. Id. at 14 (citing United States v. Wilson, 900 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir.1990)); United States v. Frederick, 897 F.2d 490 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 863, 111 S.Ct. 171, 112 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990); United States v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289, 1302 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 989, 990, 111 S.Ct. 530, 532, 112 L.Ed.2d 541 (1990) (when choosing between a number of plausible estimates of drug quantity, none of which is more likely than not the correct quantity, a court must err on the side of caution). The court's failure to be cautious, he contends, constitutes clear error. Brief at 16. 18 McMillen does not cite to any portion of the record that demonstrates that the district judge selectively chose the eleven largest transactions on which to base his calculations. To the contrary, it appears that the court relied on these particular transactions because they provided sufficient detail in which to ascertain the quantity of heroin involved. Indeed, the court took great pains to review the evidence transaction by transaction. Tr. 107-234. The court then considered evidence concerning similar transactions, for which the quantity could not be ascertained. Because these transactions were similar in nature, the court inferred that these transactions involved a similar quantity of heroin. It was the district judge's function to weigh the evidence and make a finding supported by the preponderance of the evidence. The judge's decision that the preponderance of the evidence supported his finding that the transactions involved similar quantities of heroin was not unreasonable. 19 There is nothing to suggest that the court did not act cautiously. To the contrary, the court did not take into account those amounts foreseeable to McMillen prior to October 6, 1988, although McMillen admitted in his plea agreement that he was working for Cole in the summer of 1988. In addition, the court did not take into account the amounts of heroin that were supplied to the co-conspirators for their personal use rather than being sent to the workhouse. Tr. 209-10. We believe the district court did act cautiously. In any event, McMillen does not argue that the court's determination is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the court's estimate is plausible, as McMillen concedes, we do not believe the decision is clearly erroneous. Centracchio, 977 F.2d at 1065-66. 20 McMillen also raises a number of specific contentions regarding the court's finding. McMillen asserts that during the relevant time period, there were only eighteen transactions, and not thirty-four, as the district judge found. McMillen states, 21 This is supported by the tapes which indicate a single package of heroin being referred to on multiple tapes over several days. Further, this is also supported by Jimmy Lee Coleman's testimony that he would hold a package of heroin, give half of it to the workhouse and retain the other half until the workhouse had sold the first part of the package. 22 Brief, at 12. To the contrary, each package was determined through numerous telephone calls between the co-conspirators, some taking place over a number of days. Where the evidence was unclear as to whether an amount was included in a package already counted, or whether it was a new package, the judge did not count the amount in question. Tr. 163-64. However, where the court found that the telephone conversations reflected separate deliveries, as opposed to reference of an earlier delivery, such finding was not unreasonable. Tr. 170-71, 227-31. We give great deference to the district court's interpretation of the facts. Duarte, 950 F.2d at 1266 ([w]e ordinarily give great deference to the court's judgment when it must choose between one of two inconsistent statements of fact in imposing sentence). These findings are not clearly erroneous. 23 McMillen further argues that the court's findings concerning Raji support his contention that the total distribution he can be held accountable for is less than one kilogram of heroin. The court found that Raji was the sole supplier of heroin from the spring of 1988 to November 7, 1988, and that Raji delivered at least one ounce of raw heroin per week during this twenty-two week period, for a total of 616 grams of raw heroin. The court concluded that it was foreseeable to Raji that the heroin would be cut at least twice, and therefore Raji was accountable for 1,848 grams of heroin. McMillen contends that, based on these calculations, Cole distributed an average of eighty-four grams per week (1,848 grams divided by the twenty-two week period Raji was involved). Thus, McMillen cannot be held accountable for 160 grams of heroin per week, as the judge determined. 24 The district court had a number of alternative methods for ascertaining the amount of heroin reasonably foreseeable to McMillen. The court's calculations for McMillen were based on the amount of heroin that was ascertainable from the recordings of eleven of the transactions. There is nothing to suggest that these transactions were not indicative of the other transactions that took place from October 6 to December 2--the period in which McMillen was a member of the conspiracy. The court found this calculation to be reasonable and instructed counsel that the 160 grams per week figure would be used for the other defendants, unless there was a particular reason why such information should not be considered. Tr. 334. In calculating the amount of heroin supplied by Raji, the court found that the Cole organization distributed at least one ounce of raw heroin per week during this period of time. Tr. 716 (emphasis added). This estimate was calculated by working backwards from the figures used for McMillen. Tr. 707. The determination of the amount of drugs involved is made based on a preponderance of the evidence. Price, supra at 720; Duarte, 950 F.2d at 1263. Regardless of the method used in calculating the amount foreseeable to Raji, the district judge's decision that the preponderance of the evidence supported his findings as to McMillen was not unreasonable. 25 McMillen additionally contends that if we agree with his position that the amount of heroin foreseeable to him was less than one kilogram, then on remand the district court must reconsider whether there is a factual basis for his guilty plea to at least one kilogram of heroin. He also argues that on remand the court should reconsider whether he should be given a two-point reduction for minimal participation. Because we think Judge Grady's finding concerning the amount of heroin was not clearly erroneous, we need not address these claims.