Court Opinion

ID: 9943553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 20:00:48.303734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:18.579276
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                               File Name: 24a0078n.06

                                          No. 22-3164

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                                  FILED
                                                                                    Feb 23, 2024
                                                                            KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk
                                                        )
 UNITED STATES of AMERICA,
                                                        )
        Plaintiff - Appellee,                           )      ON APPEAL FROM THE
                                                        )
                                                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT
        v.                                              )
                                                        )      COURT     FOR      THE
                                                        )      NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
 RICKY T. JACKSON,                                      )      OHIO
        Defendant - Appellant.                          )                     OPINION
                                                        )

             Before: MOORE, McKEAGUE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

    KETHLEDGE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which McKEAGUE, J., joined.
MOORE, J. (pp. 6–10), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

       KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Ricky Jackson pled guilty to drug-trafficking charges and

the district court sentenced him to 188 months’ imprisonment. Jackson now argues that the district

court erred when it relied on statements from a confidential informant when calculating the drug

quantity attributable to him and when applying a drug-premises enhancement. We reject his

arguments and affirm.

                                                I.

       Ricky Jackson belonged to the “Grovewood Boys,” a drug-trafficking organization that

sold heroin, fentanyl, and crack cocaine around the east side of Cleveland. Beginning in 2018,

law enforcement secured a series of wiretap warrants and recorded over 50,000 phone calls

between the organization’s members. A confidential informant told police that he had picked up

kilograms of heroin, fentanyl, and crack cocaine from Jackson’s reported residence,
No. 22-3164, United States v. Jackson

15807 Huntmere Avenue, which co-conspirators referred to (on wiretapped calls) as “the Mere.”

The informant said that, on one occasion, he took two kilograms of fentanyl directly from Jackson

at the Mere and delivered it to the organization’s leader, Joseph Gray. The informant identified

Jackson by his appearance, and also as Larry Jackson’s brother and by the nickname “Juice.”

       The police thereafter searched 15807 Huntmere Avenue, where they recovered $20,000 in

cash, cellular phones, drug paraphernalia, heroin and cocaine base, and some of Jackson’s personal

papers. Police arrested Jackson’s brother, Larry Jackson, during the search, and later arrested

Jackson at his girlfriend’s house.

       Jackson pled guilty to conspiracy with intent to distribute controlled substances and to

using a communication facility in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. See 21 U.S.C. § 846,

841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 843(b). Jackson admitted responsibility for “at least five grams” of

heroin and fentanyl in the plea agreement; but otherwise the agreement did not set forth an agreed-

upon drug quantity. The probation officer calculated Jackson’s base-offense level using a total

converted drug weight of 5,014 kilograms of marijuana and including an enhancement for

“maintain[ing] a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.”

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). The court adopted the presentence investigation report in full. Jackson

appeals his sentence.

                                                II.

                                                A.

       We review the district court’s drug-quantity calculations for clear error. United States v.

Owusu, 199 F.3d 329, 338 (6th Cir. 2000). The evidence that a district court considers in

calculating drug quantities must have “sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable

accuracy.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). Courts can hold a defendant accountable for a specific amount

                                                -2-
No. 22-3164, United States v. Jackson

of drugs only “if the defendant is more likely than not responsible for a quantity greater than or

equal to that amount” and can make quantity estimates “supported by competent evidence in the

record.” Owusu, 199 F.3d at 338.

       Jackson argues that the district court erred when it included the two kilograms of fentanyl

that, according to the confidential informant, Jackson gave to him to give to Gray (the

organization’s leader). “[P]articular corroboration” for each of an informant’s claims is “not

required.” United States v. Armstrong, 920 F.3d 395, 399 (6th Cir. 2019). If record evidence

corroborates several of an informant’s specific claims, the court may find him reliable and credit

a claim that is not specifically corroborated. Id. In Armstrong, for example, a confidential

informant said that she had purchased heroin from a defendant “about 70 times”—but only three

of those sales were corroborated, and the defendant denied that the other sales occurred. Id. at

398–99. Yet that was sufficient corroboration to find the informant reliable and to attribute all 70

sales to the defendant. Id.

       Here, the police corroborated at least four specific items of information that the informant

provided regarding the drug conspiracy. First, the informant said that the conspirators stored and

distributed crack cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl at the Mere. Police confirmed that information:

they recovered cocaine base and heroin when at the Mere and recorded frequent references to that

address as a meeting spot for drug deals on wiretapped phone calls. The informant also said the

organization used a “customer phone,” which co-conspirators shared to sell drugs. Police used

that information to set up controlled buys through the customer phone and eventually to wiretap

it, which fully corroborated the informant’s assertion. The informant also identified Jackson,

Joseph Gray, and Larry Jackson as members of the conspiracy, which police likewise confirmed.

Finally, the informant worked as a “drug tester” for the organization and identified its drugs as

                                                -3-
No. 22-3164, United States v. Jackson

fentanyl, crack cocaine, and heroin—which was consistent with the fentanyl, fentanyl-laced

heroin, and crack cocaine that the police seized during the investigation. Thus, the informant

provided particularized, reliable information regarding the drug conspiracy of which Jackson was

a part. The court did not clearly err when relying on the informant’s statements.

       Jackson also argues that the sentencing judge failed to err on the side of caution when

estimating drug quantities. See United States v. Anderson, 526 F.3d 319, 326 (6th Cir. 2008). On

the probation officer’s recommendation, however, the judge did exclude five drug transactions

from Jackson’s drug-quantity calculations because the record lacked enough detail to estimate

accurately the amounts involved in those transactions. The district court was sufficiently cautious

in estimating the drug quantities here.

                                                 B.

       Jackson challenges the district court’s application of an enhancement for maintaining a

drug premises. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). When reviewing a sentencing enhancement, we

“accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous” and “give due

deference to the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e).

Where, as here, the sole issue before the district court is a “fact-bound application of the guideline

provisions,” we review the district court’s decision for clear error. United States v. Jackson-

Randolph, 282 F.3d 369, 390 (6th Cir. 2002). The parties indeed agree that we review for clear

error here.

       The § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement applies when the defendant “knowingly” “maintain[s] a

premises” for “the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.” U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(b)(12); United States v. Johnson, 737 F.3d 444, 447 (6th Cir. 2013). Here, everyone

agrees that the Mere was in fact a drug premises. And Jackson does not dispute that the Mere was

                                                 -4-
No. 22-3164, United States v. Jackson

used for the purpose of distributing drugs. Jackson disputes only that he maintained the Mere.

The government can prove maintenance by showing that the defendant “held a possessory interest

in” the premises, or “controlled access to” the premises or “activities” there. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1

cmt. n. 17.

       The government can easily prove maintenance when the defendant lives at the premises,

because residency shows both possessory interest and control. United States v. Russell, 595 F.3d

633, 645 (6th Cir. 2010). And Jackson himself told his probation officer that he lived at the Mere

until 2020, which includes the time at issue here. The district court did not clearly err by taking

him at his word, particularly since Jackson disputed none of the facts in his presentence report.

See Sentencing Tr., 37:17, 38:8, 39:14, Feb. 14, 2022.

       Moreover—as a second factor that precludes a finding of clear error here—the government

presented proof that Jackson exerted control over the premises. Specifically, the informant said

that Jackson repeatedly sold drugs out of the Mere and that—while at the premises—Jackson gave

him two kilograms of fentanyl and crack cocaine to deliver to Gray. Jackson also stored drugs at

the Mere for clients to sample, as he told Gray on a wiretapped phone call. Jackson essentially

used the Mere as a stash house for months. For this reason as well, therefore, the district court did

not clearly err when it applied the drug-premises enhancement. See United States v. Taylor,

85 F.4th 386, 390 (6th Cir. 2023).

       The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                -5-
No. 22-3164, United States v. Jackson

       KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Ricky Jackson sold heroin.

He admits as much. But under the federal sentencing guidelines, the drug quantity sold and the

method of distributing the drugs can transform a number of years in prison to decades behind bars.

Ricky Jackson pleaded guilty to selling “at least 5 grams” of heroin and fentanyl mixtures. R. 601

(Plea Agreement ¶ 17) (Page ID #3917–18). He ultimately agreed that evidence supported holding

him responsible for nineteen grams of heroin.         The district court, however, held Jackson

responsible for two kilograms of fentanyl based solely on the word of an unreliable confidential

informant and also found that Jackson maintained a “drug premises” based on a home at which he

did not reside. Absent these findings, Jackson’s guidelines range likely would have been between

seventy-seven to ninety-six months’ imprisonment. Instead, based on the district court’s findings,

Jackson’s range was 188 to 235 months. The district court sentenced Jackson to 188 months’

imprisonment—nearly double the highest sentence under the guidelines without such findings.

The majority glosses over key factual issues in this case en route to blessing findings unsupported

by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

              I. THE SOLE DRUG-WEIGHT EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED
                        BY AN UNRELIABLE INFORMANT

       The majority misunderstands what is required to corroborate an informant’s account.

Though the government need not independently verify each detail, United States v. Armstrong, 920

F.3d 395, 399 (6th Cir. 2019), we have required at least some corroborating evidence that a

particular defendant engaged in particular conduct. The majority’s discussion of Armstrong

demonstrates the point: the government there corroborated the confidential informant’s hearsay

statement that the defendant sold her one gram of heroin on seventy occasions through law

enforcement’s own execution of several controlled buys of exactly one gram of heroin. Id. at 397–

99. Here, however, the details that the government did corroborate are a far cry from the

                                                -6-
No. 22-3164, United States v. Jackson

“particularized, reliable information” at issue in cases like Armstrong. Maj. Op. at 4. Instead, they

are basic points about the drug-trafficking organization, like where it operated and what it sold.

This circumstantial evidence does little to corroborate the CI’s statement to law enforcement that

Jackson personally retrieved two kilograms of fentanyl from the Huntmere address—indeed, it has

nothing to do with Jackson’s role in the conspiracy. Cf. United States v. Bates, 315 F. App’x 591,

593–95 (6th Cir. 2009) (hearsay conversation between defendant and confidential informant

concerning defendant owing co-conspirator thousands of dollars for quarter kilogram of cocaine

and two pounds of marijuana was corroborated by admitted fact that co-conspirator dealt in

kilograms of drugs and by intercepted call from co-conspirator that defendant owed him a large

sum of money).

       What is more, the CI’s statement concerning the two-kilogram transaction is at odds with

the evidence that the government did produce. The government admitted that it never observed

Jackson at the Huntmere address, and the government never even saw him with other members of

the conspiracy. The evidence that law enforcement did possess concerning Jackson’s role in the

conspiracy made him out to be a minor player, inconsistent with the CI’s account. Out of over

50,000 intercepted phone calls, Jackson is heard on at most five of them. And these calls pertain

to relatively small amounts of heroin, not fentanyl. In fact, the largest amount of heroin that law

enforcement observed Jackson discuss was fourteen grams—an infinitesimally small amount of

drugs compared to two thousand grams of fentanyl. See United States v. Ortiz, 993 F.2d 204, 206–

08 (10th Cir. 1993) (intercepted phone call in which defendant agreed to purchase one kilogram of

marijuana provided “absolutely no corroboration of the confidential informant’s” account that the

defendant sold three to five pounds of marijuana per week). The inferential leap to get from

nineteen grams of heroin to two thousand grams of fentanyl runs afoul of the bedrock principle of

                                                -7-
No. 22-3164, United States v. Jackson

due process that courts “err[] on the side of caution” when estimating drug quantity. United States

v. Anderson, 526 F.3d 319, 326 (6th Cir. 2008).

       Finally, the majority brushes aside—indeed, it never even mentions—the CI’s own

addiction issues and the need for thorough corroboration of his account. Agents terminated the CI

when they discovered that the CI was an opioid addict and was purchasing drugs on the side for

personal use from the drug-trafficking organization. See United States v. Brown, 946 F.2d 1191,

1195 (6th Cir. 1991) (“recogniz[ing] the importance of an addict-informant instruction” concerning

an addict’s credibility unless “[s]ignificant corroborating evidence” supports the witness’s

testimony and the jury is aware of the addiction) superseded by statute on other grounds, U.S.S.G.

App. C, 224 (1992); United States v. Combs, 369 F.3d 925, 939 (6th Cir. 2004) (same). For all of

these reasons, more was required to corroborate the CI’s account.

             II. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROVE THAT JACKSON
                        MAINTAINED A DRUG PREMISES

       Simply put, Jackson’s relationship to the Huntmere address bears almost no resemblance

to cases in which we have held that a defendant’s activities show sufficient control over a residence

to satisfy the maintaining element of the drug-premises enhancement. See e.g., United States v.

Hernandez, 721 F. App’x 479, 484 (6th Cir. 2018) (defendant maintained abandoned warehouse

because he “secured” the site for at least three drug deliveries, “us[ed] it multiple times, and

control[ed] the site during each event”); United States v. Broadnax, 777 F. App’x 137, 141 (6th

Cir. 2019) (maintenance established because defendant “was seen at the house on a daily basis,”

“it was his primary residence for a period,” “he appeared to enter without knocking,” and defendant

paid certain of the utilities bills); United States v. Walker, No. 22-3124, 2022 WL 17351944, at *2

(6th Cir. Dec. 1, 2022) (defendant “maintain[ed] drug-involved premises” because he lived at the

residence, “carried keys to the apartment,” and “furnished his bedroom,” among other indicia of
                                                  -8-
No. 22-3164, United States v. Jackson

control). Although the presentence report lists the Huntmere address as Jackson’s residence and

Jackson’s license reflects the same, Jackson denied living at the residence during the relevant

timeframe and explained that his license was outdated.

       These statements are consistent with law enforcement’s investigation and other evidence

Jackson put forth during the sentencing hearing. Law enforcement never observed Jackson at the

Huntmere address during the course of the investigation. Nor did agents find Jackson at the

Huntmere address when executing the search warrant. See United States v. Russell, 595 F.3d 633,

645 (6th Cir. 2010) (evidence of maintenance included that defendant was present at residence

during search and “no other people were present at the house when the police arrived”). Rather,

Jackson was staying at the Grasmere address in a different city when police executed the search,

which is where he was arrested. In fact, Jackson was on house arrest at the Grasmere address for

a substantial period of time that overlapped with the relevant time period. The few connections

between Jackson and the Huntmere, Cleveland address have innocent explanations: it was a family

residence, owned by Jackson’s grandmother, and where Jackson grew up. Contrary to the

majority’s conclusion, the district court did not base its application of the enhancement on the

Huntmere address being Jackson’s residence, but instead based the enhancement on Jackson’s

control over the residence. R. 745 (Sent’g Tr. at 28:7–9) (Page ID #5154) (overruling Jackson’s

objection to application of the enhancement because “the premises do not need to be simply a

residence or the defendant’s residence”); id. at 28:21–29:1 (Page ID #5154–55) (finding it

“extremely relevant” that Jackson was “living at one location” but nonetheless obtained “the

ability to go to” the Huntmere address (emphasis added)). The government recognized this point

on appeal, as it never argued that it was established that Jackson lived at the Huntmere address and

that we could affirm the district court on this basis alone. See Appellee Br. at 38 (arguing that

                                                -9-
No. 22-3164, United States v. Jackson

“Jackson possessed a sufficient interest in the residence and controlled activities there”); R. 745

(Sent’g Tr. at 27:20–28:3) (Page ID #5153–54) (government admitting that establishing that

Jackson maintained the Huntmere address was “a closer call than in some situations” because “he

didn’t live there full-time”).

        Finally, the closest direct evidence related to the maintenance issue comes from the CI.

This includes statements that Jackson sold crack cocaine out of the Huntmere residence and the

previously discussed two-kilogram transaction. As mentioned, the district court clearly erred by

relying on these uncorroborated statements from an unreliable informant, and the majority

commits the same error.

                                       III. CONCLUSION

        Once a defendant pleads guilty or is convicted, he undoubtedly loses some of the

protections afforded to those who take their cases to trial. But the government must still meet its

burden of proving that a defendant trafficked in a specific amount of drugs or used certain means

of distribution. Jackson will now spend nearly a decade longer in federal prison based solely on

the word of a confidential informant who provided hearsay evidence at odds with the rest of law

enforcement’s investigation and whom law enforcement terminated from the investigation. Law

enforcement could have shored up its investigation and confirmed that Jackson was as involved in

the conspiracy as the informant suggested or that Jackson indeed utilized the Huntmere address

for drug trafficking. Agents failed to do so, however, and the majority now approves sending

Jackson to prison for years beyond what is warranted. Neither our caselaw nor common sense

allow this result. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

                                                -10-