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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?