ILNews

District Court erred in drug sentence

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a man's sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine because the District Court failed to figure out the quantity of the drug reasonably attributable to the defendant.

In United States of America v. Jeffrey Dean, No. 08-3287, Jeffrey Dean appealed his conspiracy to distribute conviction and the 156-month prison sentence. He was convicted by a jury, which also found him responsible for no more than 500 grams of the drug.

The District Court used the base-level offense of 38 based on the level computed in the pre-sentence report, but adjusted it down two levels because Dean was a minor player in the conspiracy. The judge added two levels for obstruction of justice because Dean stated under oath he never sold methamphetamine when the evidence showed otherwise. The adjusted offense level of 38 was then reduced four levels to 34 because the judge split the difference between 38 and 30, which is the guideline range for 500 grams. She then reduced it to a level 33 because addiction was the driving force behind Dean's participation in the offense.

The District Court never took the first essential step of calculating the correct base offense level because it failed to ascertain the quantity of methamphetamine reasonably foreseeable to Dean. It originally set the level at 38 because it was a reliable estimate of the amount of drugs being dealt by everyone in the conspiracy, but it didn't determine how much could be attributed to Dean, wrote Judge Kenneth Ripple. The Circuit Court rejected the approach of the District Court judge to split the difference between offense levels as the equivalent of a judicial determination of the amount of drugs attributable to Dean.

"We therefore must vacate Mr. Dean's sentence and remand this case to the district court so that it may make a specific finding as to the quantity of methamphetamine reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Dean and, on the basis of that finding, impose the correct sentence," he wrote.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the imposition of a two level increase after finding Dean committed obstruction of justice. It's clear from the transcript he willfully made misrepresentations under oath that were relevant to the prosecution with specific intent of obstructing justice, wrote Judge Ripple.

The federal appellate judges also affirmed Dean's conviction of conspiracy to distribute, finding the government introduced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find he intentionally joined the charged conspiracy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT