Court Opinion

ID: 9492604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:45:02.841042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:23.236391
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Jones’ guidelines sentence rose from a range of 6-12 months to 292-365 months based solely on information provided by Frank Barrett — -the kingpin of the Barrett drug operation — concerning Jones’ sales of crack. Barrett testified at Jones’ trial, but said precious little about Jones’ dealings in crack. The evidence relied upon by the district court in inflating Jones’ sentence came from an investigator’s account of a statement Barrett made before pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement — a statement Barrett apparently based solely upon information provided by Michael Jacques. Because I cannot conclude this third-hand information was a sufficiently reliable basis for the district court’s ponderous drug-quantity finding, I respectfully dissent.
I.
At trial, Barrett testified regarding Jones’ drug sales as follows:
A I did not see Gary [Jones] selling PCP at any time. I indicated that to investigators, that I didn’t never see Gary Jones sell any types of drugs. But I knew he was selling drugs because the mule they call him, Mike Jacques, he would always sell the drugs because he owe everybody.
Q Uh-huh. So you never saw Gary Jones sell any drugs?
A No, I haven’t.
Q You never saw Gary Jones provide drugs to anyone?
A No, I haven’t.
Q To the best of your knowledge, then Gary Jones wasn’t involved with any conspiracy to distribute drugs out of your house or any of your brothers’ houses?
A Gary Jones sold PCP and marijuana.
Q Could you answer my question, please?
A He did not sell out of none of those drug houses I indicated, no, he did not.
A Sir, I indicated earlier that Gary Jones and Terry was best friend and Gary Jones was selling crack cocaine around 5706 Park. I told you that earlier.
Q Now, you’ve just told me that you’ve never seen Gary Jones sell crack or any other drug?
*385A Michael Jacques sells drugs with Terry Barrett, which was around there, they’re a crew[.]
Q Have you ever — then the only information that you have relating to Gary Jones selling drugs comes from Michael Jacques?
A Man, you don’t understand. That’s a big indication. These guys were best Mends. These guys went to school together. What is he going to lie on him? It don’t take a rocket scientist. He don’t work at Cable Vision or something like that.
Q The only information that you have relating to Gary Jones selling drugs comes from Michael Jacques; is that true?
A And Terry, my brother.
Q And your brother Terry?
A Uh-huh.
(Tr. Vol. Ill at 323-26.)
The probation officer who prepared the presentence report (PSR) attributed to Jones some 40,000 kilograms of marijuana equivalent based on “testimony from Frank Barrett [that] Jones sold one to two ounces of crack cocaine per week for Terry Barrett” from 1990 to 1992. (PSR ¶ 27.) Jones objected to the drug-quantity determination made in the PSR. In support of that determination, the government offered at the sentencing hearing the testimony of Detective James Svoboda, principal investigator of the Barrett conspiracy. Svoboda testified that he interviewed Frank Barrett before Barrett pleaded guilty and that “[b]asically Mr. Barrett had told us between 1989 and 1992 Gary Jones sold one to two ounces of crack cocaine a week for Terry — or with Terry Barrett.” (Sent. Tr. at 17.)
II.
I acknowledge that the Confrontation Clause presents no bar to the use of Svo-boda’s testimony to establish the drug quantity attributed to Jones. See United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 401 (8th Cir.1992). Likewise, I recognize that due process does not require that drug quantities be proven beyond a mere preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Behler, 14 F.3d 1264, 1272 (8th Cir.1994). Nevertheless, drug quantity is “a critical calculation,” United States v. Simmons, 964 F.2d 763, 773 (8th Cir.1992), and the burden of proving drug quantities lies with the government, see United States v. Stavig, 80 F.3d 1241, 1245 (8th Cir.1996). Although the rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing, relevant information considered by the sentencing court must have “sufficient indicia of reliability to support their probable accuracy.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a), p.s. (emphasis added). I am unable to find in the record any basis from which to infer the probable accuracy of the decidedly brief and imprecise statement Frank Barrett gave immediately before pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement.
It is apparent to me that the reason why the government did not call Barrett at Jones’ sentencing is that Barrett had been sentenced within one month after his trial testimony against Jones, and therefore at the time of Jones’ sentencing Barrett no longer had any motivation to assist the government. It may be, then, that Barrett would have lied at Jones’ sentencing, minimizing Jones’ drug activities. However, it may also be that Barrett was lying when he implicated Jones prior to entering his guilty plea, either to minimize his own involvement in the conspiracy or to increase his odds of receiving a reduced sentence on account of his substantial assistance to the government. This situation requires that the district court engage in a careful assessment of Barrett’s credibility, but the district court never observed Barrett address the quantity of crack Gary Jones was selling.1 I see no basis in the *386record to believe Barrett was more likely to tell the truth before pleading guilty than after receiving the benefit of his plea agreement. Cf. United States v. Hiveley, 61 F.3d 1358, 1362 & n.2 (8th Cir.1995) (upholding district court’s drug-quantity determinations based on co-conspirators’ testimony where court made specific findings concerning credibility of each witness; “To sentence an offender by the weight of drugs attributed to that person by a co-conspirator now cooperating with the government usually for a reduced sentence, is a procedure that can be subject to much error and can justifiably be criticized.”).
III.
As the record currently stands, I believe the district court’s drug-quantity determination is clearly erroneous and must be reversed for a more substantial evidentia-ry hearing at which Frank Barrett could testify and be subjected to cross-examination.

. In fact, at sentencing the district court rebuffed Jones’ attorney’s effort to attack Bar*386rett’s credibility, stating, ”[Y]our interrogation would be of more significance if you had a jury that you were making that examination to. I find it not helpful.” (Sent. Tr. at 21.)