964 F.3d 555
6th Cir.2020Background
- In April 2017 McReynolds was indicted (Count 1) for conspiring to distribute ≥500 g cocaine and ≥1,000 g heroin during June 2015–Aug 2016; he was the only defendant tried.
- McReynolds conceded selling small quantities for personal consumption but denied membership in the charged conspiracy.
- Government evidence: Title III wiretap of conspiracy leader Beavers (showing ~58 calls with McReynolds), surveillance placing McReynolds near a stash location once, and testimony from cooperating witnesses and an informant (A.A.) who said she bought ~0.3 g purchases from McReynolds. Searches of stash houses and codefendant plea agreements yielded large quantities, but none of the search evidence linked directly to McReynolds.
- The jury convicted McReynolds of the conspiracy and found the drug amounts attributable to him were less than 100 g heroin and less than 500 g cocaine.
- The PSR and district court, however, attributed far larger, conspiracy‑wide quantities (combining codefendants’ plea amounts and extrapolated sales to A.A.), raising McReynolds’ base offense level and adding about five years to his guidelines range; the court imposed a within‑guidelines sentence without explaining why it adopted the higher quantities.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, instructing the district court to explain any attribution of drug amounts beyond the jury verdict (i.e., show preponderant evidence and make particularized findings).
Issues
| Issue | United States' Argument | McReynolds' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency (elements of §846) | Indictment adequately alleged conspiracy elements. | Indictment failed to allege that he knowingly and intentionally agreed to join the conspiracy. | Affirmed: indictment was sufficient; construed liberally for plain‑error review. |
| Constructive amendment via jury instructions | Instructions were proper and tracked elements; did not add offense. | Jury instructions constructively amended the indictment by adding an element not charged. | Affirmed: no constructive amendment; instructions comported with charged elements. |
| Use of acquitted/conspiracy‑wide conduct at sentencing (drug‑quantity attribution) | Under White, court may find sentencing facts by a preponderance; higher quantities supported by record. | District court violated Fifth/Sixth Amendments by increasing sentence based on acquitted conduct without adequate findings/explanation. | Vacated sentence and remanded: court must explain/identify particularized findings and why higher quantities are attributable to defendant by a preponderance. |
| Party‑presentation / scope of appellate review | (implicitly) Government contends White forecloses overturning sentence on constitutional grounds. | McReynolds argues sentence is substantively unreasonable and unconstitutional as applied; majority allowed review despite dissent’s party‑presentation concerns. | Majority: review appropriate; parties had raised sentencing‑quantity dispute below and on appeal. Dissent would have affirmed sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (district courts may rely on judge‑found "acquitted conduct" at sentencing if proven by a preponderance of the evidence).
- United States v. Campbell, 279 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2002) (for conspiracy sentencing, court must make particularized findings that coconspirators’ acts were within defendant’s scope of agreement and foreseeable).
- United States v. Swiney, 203 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2000) (scope of relevant conduct for conspiracy sentencing is narrower than scope required for conviction).
- United States v. Russell, 595 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2010) (government bears burden by preponderance to prove drug quantity at sentencing).
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (plain‑error review applied to unchallenged indictment defects).
- Marcus v. United States, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (plain‑error framework requirements).
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error standard and when appellate courts may correct forfeited errors).
- Sineneng‑Smith v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020) (party‑presentation principle limits courts from deciding issues not framed by the parties).