Opinion ID: 2709585
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Average Weight

Text: In one last attempt to dispute the district court’s calculation of the relevant drug weight, Vaughn contends that the court improperly relied on the 0.13 gram-perbindle calculation completed by the detective who seized the seventy bags of heroin from Ford on the day of his arrest. Vaughn suggests that a more appro- priate estimate, as Lockhart put forth in his sentencing memorandum, would have been a measure of 0.09 grams per bindle. Prior to his sentencing, Lockhart submitted a report prepared by a chemistry student obtaining a PhD at UW-Madison who had visually compared packages of a similar substance and speculated that it would have Nos. 12-1835 & 12-1947 33 been possible for the packages to contain 0.09 gram of heroin, which would change the total weight figures. In contrast to the PhD student, the testifying detective physically weighed the bindles of heroin he seized from Ford. He weighed all of the bindles together and then weighed one of the empty bags. The detective multiplied the weight of the single, empty bag by seventy and then subtracted that number from the overall weight of the bags and the heroin combined to arrive at an average weight of 0.13 gram of heroin per bindle. Moreover, the PSR noted that the crime lab had actually determined the weight of the heroin in the seventy bags seized from Ford to be 11.621 grams, yielding an average weight of 0.166 gram per bag, but it ultimately used the detective’s more conservative estimate to calculate the relevant drug weight. The district court accepted the PSR’s calculation of the average weight per bindle during Vaughn’s sentencing hearing on March 29, 2012, before Lockhart submitted the report offering the alternative 0.09 gram figure.5 Because the 0.13 gram per bindle calculation is supported by reliable information in the PSR, we find no error in the district court’s acceptance of that estimate. And having determined that the district court committed no prejudicial error in identifying the relevant drug quantities or approving the average drug weight, we affirm the calculation of Vaughn’s base offense level for sentencing. 5 Lockhart submitted the report to the district court on April 12, 2012. 34 Nos. 12-1835 & 12-1947 2. Criminal History Calculation Vaughn turns next to the district court’s calculation of his relevant criminal history. He contends that but for the court’s consideration of the heroin sales to Green in 2007 as relevant conduct, the district court could not have included a 1998 conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance and a two-point increase for committing the instant offense while under supervised release. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(1) (specifying that “[a]ny prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month that was imposed within fifteen years of the defendant’s commencement of the instant offense” and “any other prior sentence that was imposed within ten years of the defendant’s commencement of the instant offense” should be counted when computing the defendant’s criminal history); U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) (directing the addition of two points “if the defendant committed the instant offense while under . . . supervised release”); see also U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 comment n.8 (defining the “commencement of the instant offense,” as including any relevant conduct considered under § 1B1.3). Having already determined that the district court committed no plain error by including the 2007 drug sales as relevant conduct, we agree with the district court’s calculation of Vaughn’s criminal history points. The prior conviction at issue was imposed by an Illinois court within ten years of the 2007 conduct, and Vaughn was on supervised release until August 1, 2008 for a more recent offense. Nos. 12-1835 & 12-1947 35 3. Application of the Leader/Organizer Enhancement Vaughn’s final argument with respect to the district court’s calculation of his guidelines range pertains to the court’s application of a two-level leader or organizer enhancement. Section 3B1.1(c) of the sentencing guidelines provides that a defendant’s offense level should be increased by two levels “[i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). Vaughn contends that in his case, the application of the enhancement was improper because the facts presented at trial demonstrated no more than a buyer-seller relationship or alternatively, because he played the lesser role of bringing the parties together. Vaughn argues, as he did in challenging his conviction, that the record is devoid of any evidence corroborating Ford’s and Kast’s testimony placing Vaughn in the leadership role. In determining whether a defendant acted as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor, we have held that courts may consider the factors outlined in Application Note 4 to § 3B1.1(c), including the degree of control and authority the defendant exercised over others. See United States v. Weaver, No. 12-3324, 2013 WL 2402851,  (7th Cir. June 3, 2013) (allowing but not requiring courts to reference the factors in Application Note 4 to the extent they “help to straighforwardly identify whether a defendant helps manage or supervise a criminal scheme” (inter36 Nos. 12-1835 & 12-1947 nal quotation marks omitted)).6 There may be cases in which a court need not consider those factors in order to conclude that the defendant was a leader or manager, but here, the factor addressing control and authority is instructive. See id. The evidence at trial showed that Vaughn supplied Ford with heroin to sell each day during the conspiracy and exercised direct, ongoing control over Ford’s sales by requiring customers to contact him before purchasing from Ford. Only when Vaughn called Ford on the cell phone Vaughn provided would Ford be informed of when and where to meet a purchaser to distribute the pre-packaged, sealed bags of heroin. At the end of each shift, Ford testified that he returned the cell phone and the proceeds to either Vaughn or Lockhart so that Lockhart could continue selling into the afternoon and evening. This arrangement is distinct from one in which a supplier merely fronts drugs to distributors; Vaughn told Ford what to do and determined whether he had done it. See United States v. Figueroa, 682 F.3d 694, 697 (7th Cir. 2012). And although Vaughn again urges this court to discredit Ford’s and his girlfriend’s testimony, we refuse to re-weigh the evidence presented to the jury or independently assess each witness’s credibility. The jury accepted Ford’s testimony, which clearly established Vaughn’s supervisory role, and the district court appro- 6 In Weaver, we explained that “[a]lthough Note 4 offered these factors to distinguish between organizer/leaders and managers/supervisors, we have, in the past, consulted these factors to decide whether Guideline 3B1.1 applies in the first place.” Weaver, 2013 WL 2402851 at  (emphasis in original). Nos. 12-1835 & 12-1947 37 priately applied the two-level enhancement. Together with Vaughn’s base offense level and his criminal history, the district court properly determined Vaughn’s guidelines range for sentencing to be 235 to 293 months. E. Vaughn’s Within-Guidelines Sentence is Substantively Reasonable. After hearing argument from the parties and con- sidering the relevant sentencing documents, the district court imposed a sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment. Although sentences within or below a correctly-calculated guidelines range are presumed reasonable, United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835, 837 (7th Cir. 2009), Vaughn contends that the district court committed procedural error by not properly considering the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that it ultimately imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. This court reviews de novo whether the sentencing court committed a procedural error, but considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse of discretion in light of the factors in § 3553(a). United States v. Annoreno, 713 F.3d 352, 357 (7th Cir. 2013). A sentencing court is not required to comprehensively discuss each of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and explicitly formulate a conclusion with respect to each one. United States v. Vizcarra, 668 F.3d 516, 527 (7th Cir. 2012). Instead, “sentencing judges must only demonstrate meaningful consideration of [the] § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Paige, 611 F.3d 397, 398 (7th Cir. 2010). And “we regularly affirm sentences where the district judge does 38 Nos. 12-1835 & 12-1947 not explicitly mention each argument raised by the defendant.” Id. Before imposing Vaughn’s sentence, the district court addressed the seriousness of the offense and Vaughn’s history and characteristics. The judge explained that Vaughn’s relevant conduct involved a conservative estimate of 1.57 kilograms of heroin, an extremely addictive substance, and noted that Vaughn’s previous terms of imprisonment had not deterred him from com- mitting additional crimes. Although Vaughn had been laid off from his job at a GM parts distributor in the fall of 2008, the judge explained that his drug activity could not be traced back to that event because Vaughn began selling heroin while he was still employed. Given the nature of the offense and Vaughn’s personal history and characteristics, the judge determined that a custodial sentence of twenty years would be reasonable and no greater than necessary to satisfy the statutory purposes of sentencing. With respect to the court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, Vaughn essentially argues that the district court gave insufficient weight to facts that may have counseled in favor of a lower sentence, such as his desire to act as a father to his step daughters and biological son. This court has explained, however, that “it is perfectly acceptable for courts to assign varying weights to the factors as they deem appropriate in the context of each case.” United States v. Busara, 551 F.3d 669, 674 (7th Cir. 2008). Because the district court adequately considered the statutory sentencing factors and provided a compreNos. 12-1835 & 12-1947 39 hensive explanation for the sentence imposed, it committed no procedural error. See United States v. Ashqar, 582 F.3d 819, 826-27 (7th Cir. 2009). In addition to contesting the procedural aspects of his sentencing, Vaughn argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the lesser, seventy-twomonth sentence Lockhart received for his role in the conspiracy. True, § 3553(a)(6) requires judges to consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). But the fact that the district court imposed a lesser sentence on Vaughn’s co-defendant does not mean that Vaughn’s sentence is therefore unreasonable. United States v. Hill, 683 F.3d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 2012). Vaughn’s criminal history points put him in criminal history category V, whereas Lockhart fell within category II. Moreover, Lockhart’s need for rehabilitation and deterrence was much less pronounced than Vaughn’s. And although Vaughn suggests that he played a lesser role in the conspiracy, the court properly imposed a two-level enhancement for his role as a leader, an enhancement that was not applicable to Lockhart. These distinctions resulted in considerably different guidelines ranges, and the sentencing disparity between them was warranted. Accordingly, we conclude that Vaughn has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness attached to his withinguidelines sentence. 40 Nos. 12-1835 & 12-1947