ILNews

7th Circuit finds meth dealer was acting like a merchant, not a manager

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although an Indiana man determined how much and how often his buyers received methamphetamine as well as pressured them to sell, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded his sentence should not have been enhanced because his actions were not coercive.

Jeffrey Weaver pled guilty to conspiring with two buyers to possess and distribute methamphetamine. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found that the way Weaver fronted his drugs merited him receiving a 3-level manager/supervisor enhancement on his sentence. Weaver was then sentenced to 235 months imprisonment, the bottom of the range calculated by the court.

In USA v. Jeffrey Weaver, 12-3324, Weaver appealed, arguing there was no evidence that he managed or supervised his buyers. The Circuit Court agreed, vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing.

The 7th Circuit found that the U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 enhancement requires an exercise of control and authority. A key indicator of control that is suggestive of managerial responsibility is the ability to coerce the underlings.

Describing Weaver as providing insufficient ongoing supervision and coercive authority, the court said he simply fronted methamphetamine to his buyers. In fact, the court found Weaver was like any other business that extends credit to customers. He encouraged behavior that would protect his investment and insure payment of the debt owed to him.

The Circuit Court noted Weaver did not tell his buyers what price they had to charge, impose territorial limits on their sales or set distribution quotas. Moreover, if the buyers did not sell the drugs, they remained indebted to Weaver at $1,700 per ounce.

Weaver pushed his wares aggressively and demanded prompt payment, the court said, but his interest in a quick turnaround does not make his buyers his underlings.

“Weaver simply ‘instructed them to promptly sell’ the methamphetamine ‘so he could distribute more to them,’” Judge Joel Flaum wrote for the court. “Trying to sell more while getting paid is what merchants – not necessarily managers and supervisors – do.”


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT