US v. Evans: Evans was involved in a conspiracy to sell drugs in West Virginia and Ohio. He got his drugs from Gregory, in Ohio, who in turn worked for Douglas, who transported large quantities from Georgia to Ohio. On one trip he was stopped by police, who recovered 2.78 kilograms of “ice” methamphetamine. Evans was convicted, at trial, of conspiracy and two substantive counts of possession with intent based on controlled buys made from his underlings. At sentencing, the probation officer calculated Evans’ Guideline range as life in prison, capped by 80 years worth of statutory maxima. Among his many objections, Evans objected to the relevant conduct attributed to him – the 2.78 kilograms of meth recovered from Douglas, upon which the Government exclusively relied. The district court overruled the objection and sentenced Evans to 80 years in prison.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Evans’ sentence. The court noted that to attribute relevant conduct from one coconspirator to another the court must make particularized findings as to the scope of their agreement and whether the coconspirator’s conduct fell within it. The district court failed to make such findings in this case, instead asking “only whether the drugs seized from Douglas were within the scope of the entire conspiracy.” That was the standard for substantive liability, not for attributing relevant conduct. The court refused to determine the relevant conduct attributable to Evans on appeal, calling it a “fact-intensive determine” that was “well outside our purview as an appellate court.” The court also held that the district court erred by imposing enhancements for both possession of a firearm and making a credible threat to use violence, noting that the later cannot apply if it is based entirely on the possession of a firearm.
No comments:
Post a Comment