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. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well