Legal Document

523 U.S. 511118 S.Ct. 1475140 L.Ed.2d 703 Vincent EDWARDS, Reynolds A. Wintersmith, Horace Joiner, Karl V. Fort, and Joseph Tidwell, Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. No. 96-8732. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 23, 1998. Decided April 28, Syllabus * At petitioners' trial under 21 U.S.C. §§841 846 for "conspir[ing]'' to "possess with intent . distribute [mixtures containing two] controlled substance[s],'' namely, cocaine base (i.e., "crack''), jury was instructed that Government must prove conspiracy involved measurable amounts "cocaine or base.'' (Emphasis added.) The returned a general verdict guilty, District Judge imposed sentences based on his finding each petitioner's illegal conduct both crack. Petitioners argued (for first time) in Seventh Circuit their were unlawful insofar as they upon crack, because word "or'' instruction meant judge assume only cocaine, which is treated more leniently than crack by Sentencing Guidelines §2D1.1(c). However, court held need not involved, pointing out that, require sentencing judge, jury, determine kind amount drugs at issue drug conspiracy, jury's belief about involved-cocaine, both-was beside point. Held: Because instruct case like this substances defendant should be accountable, then impose sentence varies depending those determinations, see, e.g., Witte v. States, 515 389, 115 2199, 132 351, it who required whether "controlled substances'' issue-and how much them-consisted both. That what did case, beliefs are irrelevant. This not, does consider merits claims statutes Constitution convicted them involving cocaine. Even if so, would make no difference here. drug-conspiracy offender's "relevant conduct,'' §1B1.3, includes constitutes "offense conviction,'' §1B1.3(a)(1), "part same course common scheme plan offense 1B1.3(a)(2). Thus, below have had total drugs, consisted both, each-regardless he believed crack-related part conviction'' conduct, plan.'' range-on either belief-is identical. Petitioners' statutory constitutional could argue exceeded maximum cocaine-only activities constitute "same etc., but record indicates such arguments succeed. Their argument, made time appeal, might different factual findings known law him found unpersuasive. Pp. ____-____. 105 F.3d 1179, affirmed. BREYER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Steven Shobat, Chicago, IL, appointed court, petitioners. Edward C. DuMont, New York City, respondent. Justice BREYER 1 crime "conspir[e]'' substance.'' 846. charged petitioners violating these conspiring "to possess mixtures containing'' two substances, namely base'' "crack''). App. 6. "the government 16 (emphasis added). guilty. And 2 Appeals judge's They said (permitting guilty crack) drug, added, treat See Commission, Manual §2D1.1(c) (drug table) (Nov. 1994) (USSG). Appeals, however, involved. 1179 (1997). It pointed conspiracy. F.3d, 1180. reasoned therefore 1181. In light potential conflict among circuits question, Bounds, 985 F.2d 188, 194-195 (C.A.5 1993); Pace, 981 1123 (C.A.10 1992); Owens, 904 411 (C.A.8 1990), we granted certiorari. 3 We agree circumstances authorized purposes well offense-related activities. one accountable-and kind. Watts, 519 148, 117 633, 136 554 (1997) (per curiam) (judge may charge offender has been acquitted determining sentence); 351 (1995) higher possessing marijuana also engaged uncharged conspiracy). Consequently, regardless actual, assumed, nonetheless substances-consisted case. 4 Virtually conceding Guidelines-related point, statutes, Constitution, misapprehend significance contention, even correct, conduct.'' USSG §1B1.3. this, id., §1B1.3(a)(2). here 5 Of course, possible argue, say, permit set statute trumps forth Guidelines. §5G1.1. But, points out, within limits applicable given quantities attributed petitioner. Brief 15-16, nn. 6-7; see §§841(b)(1)-(3); 42-47, 72-82, 107-112, 136-141, 163-169 (cocaine petitioner). Cf. Orozco-Prada, 732 1076, 1083-1084 (C.A.2 1984) (court penalties when scheme, Then, (had conviction'') sentence-related conduct'' all. But and, after reviewing (which shows series interrelated transactions crack), do any claim 6 Instead, cocaine-only, cocaine-and-crack, sufficient present purposes, point particular argument Indeed, seem raised entire Appeals. explain "jury-found-only-cocaine'' assumption own findings, nor (given findings) lead greater leniency. Moreover, our review Guidelines-based fact-finding, while resting evidence before depend type found. Nor there indication urge (a conspiracy) likely respect discretionary 7 For reasons, claims. judgment 8 Affirmed. syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.

Classification Label: 0