United States v. Andrew Alexander
710 F. App'x 105
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Police executed a warrant at Veronica Rivera’s residence and found heroin (packaged and bulk), cocaine, crack cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and $2,893; handwritten notes found in pants belonging to Alexander.
- Alexander admitted being present in the bedroom where cocaine and crack were found and fled when police arrived; cooperating witnesses (Rivera, Gonzalez) linked Alexander to supplying and obtaining drugs.
- A jury convicted Alexander of conspiracy to distribute heroin but acquitted him as to cocaine and crack; acquitted on the possession count.
- The PSR attributed all drugs found to Alexander and classified him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, producing a Guidelines range of 210–240 months.
- The District Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Alexander was responsible for the cocaine and crack (acquitted conduct), but varied downward and sentenced him to 144 months (a 66‑month downward variance).
- Alexander appealed, arguing the court should not have considered acquitted conduct; the Third Circuit reviewed the drug‑quantity finding for clear error and the sentence for reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may consider acquitted conduct at sentencing | Govt: Court may consider acquitted conduct if proven by preponderance | Alexander: District court should not use acquitted conduct to increase sentence | Court: May consider acquitted conduct when proved by a preponderance (follow Watts/Ciavarella) |
| Whether the District Court’s attribution of cocaine/crack to Alexander was clearly erroneous | Govt: Evidence (admission, ledger, witnesses, conduct) supports attribution | Alexander: Challenges use of acquitted conduct and attribution | Court: Finding was supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether inclusion of acquitted drug quantities affected Guidelines and reasonableness | Govt: Drug quantity increases base level but defendant is career offender so range unaffected; quantity used as reference for variance | Alexander: Quantity inclusion improperly influenced sentencing | Court: Quantity did not change final Guidelines (career offender applied); court lawfully used it as reference; sentence reasonable |
| Whether the 144‑month sentence was substantively reasonable | Govt: District Court considered §3553(a) factors and appropriately varied downward | Alexander: Sentence unreasonable because it relied on acquitted conduct | Court: 66‑month downward variance was substantively reasonable; deference to district court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d 705 (3d Cir. 2013) (acquitted conduct may be considered at sentencing if proved by a preponderance)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (a jury’s acquittal does not bar consideration of the same conduct at sentencing)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (appellate deference to district court’s §3553(a) sentencing judgments)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reasonableness review of sentences)
- United States v. Sau Hung Yeung, 241 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 2001) (drug‑quantity findings at sentencing reviewed for clear error)