Court Opinion

ID: 9961082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 20:00:40.660591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:15.716328
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                File Name: 24a0168n.06

                                        Case No. 23-3600

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                                   Apr 17, 2024
                                                      )                    KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      )
       Plaintiff-Appellee,                            )
                                                      )        ON APPEAL FROM THE
       v.                                             )        UNITED STATES DISTRICT
                                                      )        COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DONNELL GOCHETT,                                      )        DISTRICT OF OHIO
       Defendant-Appellant.                           )
                                                      )                             OPINION

BEFORE: COLE, CLAY, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

       COLE, Circuit Judge. Donnell Gochett pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent

to distribute cocaine. The district court sentenced Gochett to 100 months’ imprisonment, at the

low end of the recommended range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Gochett

appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by refusing to grant a mitigating-role

reduction to his offense level, and that his counsel was ineffective in plea bargaining. We affirm.

                                                I.

       In 2011, Donnell Gochett was convicted of drug offenses for running Earl King’s street-

level heroin operation while King was incarcerated. Gochett was released from prison in 2015

and from state post-release control in 2019.

       This case stems from a drug operation that Gochett and King participated in years after.

On June 18, 2021, King flew from Cleveland, Ohio to Texas. Homeland Security discovered

$154,850 hidden within a computer tower in his checked bag. At 1:46 AM, shortly after King
No. 23-3600, United States v. Gochett

arrived in Texas and by which time he would have realized his cash had been seized, Gochett

texted him, “What up, bro. Everything cool? Hit me back.” (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 62, PageID

320, 339.) Days later, King responded with a photo of paperwork indicating that he had violated

the terms of his parole by leaving Ohio.

       King had exchanged text messages about drug trafficking with Dionicio Galindo-Salinas,

Curtis Anderson, and Gochett. The messages revealed that Galindo-Salinas delivered cocaine to

King and Anderson in Mexico and Texas in exchange for cash. King and Anderson then shipped

the cocaine to Cleveland addresses, at least one of which was provided by Gochett, 1745 Catalpa

Road. Gochett gave addresses to King as early as March 2020. According to UPS records, 12

packages were shipped from Brownsville to two Cleveland addresses between November 2020

and June 2021. Eight of those packages were shipped to the Catalpa Road address between April

2021 and June 2021. On June 22, 2021, a final package was sent to Catalpa Road via UPS, but

the label lacked a street number. UPS marked the package undeliverable and turned it over to law

enforcement. The package contained 10.977 kilograms of cocaine, which, like King’s cash, was

hidden in a computer tower. In text messages, Gochett, Anderson, and King discussed that the

package was not addressed properly and that it had been seized.

       On July 14, 2022, Gochett was charged with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute

cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. Gochett’s trial counsel was

appointed on October 17, 2022. The district court granted multiple continuances at Gochett’s

request, moving his final pretrial hearing to March 28, 2023. At that hearing, the prosecutor

indicated that the parties “have had discussions” and were close to a resolution. (March 28, 2023

Pretrial Hr’g Tr., R. 61, PageID 298.) Gochett’s counsel agreed and also stated that he had “had

many discussions with Mr. Gochett.” (Id. at PageID 298–300.) The district court allowed Gochett

                                              -2-
No. 23-3600, United States v. Gochett

another week to continue plea negotiations, setting a new final pretrial hearing for April 5, 2023.

       By the April hearing, the parties still had not finalized the plea agreement. The district

court granted Gochett a two-hour recess to make a final decision as to whether to accept the plea

agreement. Gochett and his counsel returned an hour before the end of the recess and accepted the

plea agreement. Gochett and his counsel “went through [the plea agreement] page by page,

paragraph by paragraph . . . [and] both signed it.” (April 5, 2023 Pretrial Hr’g Tr., R. 58, PageID

276.) Gochett’s counsel said, “I had obviously discussed [the plea agreement] previously with my

client.” (Id.) Under oath, Gochett confirmed that he had discussed the charges against him and

“all matters pertaining to [his] case” with his counsel and that he had “fully read and review[ed]”

the plea agreement with counsel before he signed it. (Id. at PageID 278–79.)

       At sentencing, Gochett argued for a minor or minimal mitigating-role reduction to his

Guidelines offense level. The presentence investigation report recommended a two-level minor

role reduction, but not a four-level minimal-role reduction. The district court declined to apply

either reduction, setting the offense level at 27, which did reflect a three-level reduction for

Gochett’s acceptance of responsibility.        The court sentenced Gochett to 100 months’

imprisonment—at the bottom of the Guidelines range of 100 to 125 months. Gochett brought this

timely appeal.

                                                II.

                                                A.

       Gochett argues that he was a minimal or minor participant in the criminal activity because

he “received nothing of value for providing a shipping address, which was the extent of his

involvement.” (Appellant Br. 25.) Gochett contends that the district court should have granted

him a four-level or two-level mitigating-role reduction under § 3B1.2 of the Guidelines.

                                               -3-
No. 23-3600, United States v. Gochett

         We review a denial of a mitigating-role reduction for clear error. United States v. Lanham,

617 F.3d 873, 888 (6th Cir. 2010). “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the

factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,

470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). The district court’s view is permissible if it “is plausible in light of the

record viewed in its entirety.” Id. Gochett bore the burden of proving that he was entitled to a

reduction by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Bailey, 488 F.3d 363, 369 (6th Cir.

2007).

         A minimal participant is “plainly among the least culpable of those involved,” and a minor

participant is “less culpable than most other participants in the criminal activity, but whose role

could not be described as minimal.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. nn.4–5. The defendant must be

“substantially less culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity” to qualify for even

the minor participant reduction. Id. cmt. n.3(A). “The salient issue is the role the defendant played

in relation to the activity for which the court held him or her accountable.” United States v. Roper,

135 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 1998). Lastly, even if a defendant was a minimal or minor participant

in the broader conspiracy, he is not entitled to a mitigating role reduction if he is held accountable

only for the drugs attributable to him. United States v. Campbell, 279 F.3d 392, 396 (6th Cir.

2002).

         Here, the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible. Under the district court’s

view, Gochett sat at one end of the drug chain. King transported cash from Cleveland to Texas.

Galindo-Salinas delivered drugs to King and Anderson in Texas. King and Anderson then shipped

the drugs to the address provided by Gochett in Cleveland. While King was flying to Texas,

investigators searched his checked bag, finding more than $150,000 in cash. That night, at 1:46

AM, Gochett checked in on King, suggesting that he knew King should have arrived in Texas with

                                                 -4-
No. 23-3600, United States v. Gochett

the money. Then, law enforcement intercepted a drug package before it could be delivered to the

address Gochett provided. That package contained nearly 11 kilograms of cocaine.

       In the months immediately preceding the interception, at least eight other packages were

shipped from Brownsville to the address that Gochett provided, but Gochett gave “no explanation

that they were not cocaine.” (PSR, R. 48, PageID 214; Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 62, PageID 313.)

Additionally, ten years before, King and Gochett had worked together in a different drug

conspiracy that led to Gochett’s prior convictions. The district court could infer that Gochett knew

that King was shipping drugs to Cleveland and that Gochett would have received and distributed

those drugs had law enforcement not intercepted the package.

       In light of Gochett’s communications with King, the number of packages shipped to

Gochett, and Gochett and King’s prior history, the district court plausibly inferred that Gochett

had a panoramic understanding of the conspiracy and that Gochett intended to help distribute the

shipment. If true, this would make Gochett a critical link in the drug-trafficking scheme, not a

minor participant. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err when it denied a mitigating-

role reduction.

                                                B.

       Gochett next argues that his counsel was ineffective in negotiating and explaining his plea

agreement. As a general rule, we do not review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct

appeal unless the record has been adequately developed to assess the merits of the claim. United

States v. Ferguson, 669 F.3d 756, 762 (6th Cir. 2012). A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the

“preferred mode” for raising such a claim because a § 2255 motion puts the claim first before the

district court, “the forum best suited to developing the facts necessary to determining the adequacy

of representation.” Id. (quoting Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 505 (2003)).

                                               -5-
No. 23-3600, United States v. Gochett

       At the March 28, 2023 pretrial hearing, Gochett’s counsel agreed with the prosecutor’s

statement that the parties “have had discussions” and were close to a resolution. (March 28, 2023

Pretrial Hr’g Tr., R. 61, PageID 298–300.) At that hearing, Gochett’s counsel also indicated that

he had “had many discussions with Mr. Gochett.” (Id. at PageID 300.) At the April 5, 2023

hearing, Gochett’s counsel said, “I had obviously discussed [the plea agreement] previously with

my client.” (April 5, 2023 Pretrial Hr’g Tr., R. 58, PageID 276.) During the recess of the April

hearing, Gochett and his trial counsel went over the plea deal “page by page, paragraph by

paragraph.” (April 5, 2023 Pretrial Hr’g Tr., R. 58, PageID 276.). The record does not include

the content of the discussions between the prosecution and defense or of private attorney-client

discussions.

       Without evidence of the content of these conversations, we cannot determine whether

Gochett’s counsel effectively negotiated the plea agreement or meaningfully explained its terms.

This claim is better suited for a § 2255 motion, so we decline to review the merits on direct appeal.

                                                III.

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

                                                -6-