United States v. Christopher Baines
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2031
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Christopher Baines pleaded guilty to one-count conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin (21 U.S.C. § 846) and was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment; he appealed only his sentence.
- Investigation (2007–2008) included controlled buys, wire intercepts, cooperating witnesses, and seizures (notably 49g and 165g tied to Baines); government alleged over 30 kg heroin plus kilogram quantities of cocaine as relevant conduct.
- Key witnesses (co-defendant Christine Burgos and supplier Emeterio Gutierrez aka “Kentucky”) testified that Baines received roughly 1 kg/week in 2005–2006 and about 2 kg/month in 2007–mid‑2008, used stash houses, delivery points, same vehicles, and directed wholesale distribution.
- District court credited Burgos and Gutierrez, found Baines responsible for >30 kg heroin (base offense level 38), applied role and acceptance adjustments, and imposed a below‑Guidelines 240‑month sentence plus $300,000 forfeiture.
- On appeal Baines argued (1) the court improperly aggregated remote/uncharged drug quantities as relevant conduct, (2) the court failed to adequately consider mitigation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and (3) he should be remanded in light of a Sentencing Guidelines amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Baines) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly included uncharged 2004–2006 drug activity as relevant conduct | Evidence (pleas, testimony, intercepted calls, controlled buys) shows same principal, supplier, accomplice, locations, modus operandi — supports aggregation to >30 kg | Activity was temporally remote and dissimilar in quantity; court failed to make required explicit factual findings | Affirmed: court’s credibility findings and identification of common factors supported relevant‑conduct finding; no clear error |
| Whether court failed to address § 3553(a) mitigating arguments | Court considered disparity with co‑defendants, family circumstances, and traumatic youth and explicitly referenced them in oral ruling and written reasons | Court did not adequately consider mitigation and failed procedurally | Affirmed: record and written statement show mitigation considered; no procedural error |
| Whether case should be remanded now for resentencing under recent Guidelines amendment | Government: remand not required on direct appeal; proper route is § 3582(c) motion to district court | Baines urged remand for resentencing under the amended Guidelines | Denied on appeal; court suggested § 3582(c) motion is the appropriate vehicle |
| Sufficiency of district court’s factual findings for aggregation | Court’s credibility findings and description of common supplier, runner, locations, and pattern satisfied requirement to state and support findings | Argues court failed to explicitly invoke "common scheme or plan" or make specific findings | Affirmed: explicit findings were implicit and supported by record; no remand needed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Delatorre, 406 F.3d 863 (7th Cir.) (relevant‑conduct aggregation can include uncharged offenses as part of common scheme or plan)
- United States v. Singleton, 548 F.3d 589 (7th Cir.) (temporal gaps do not preclude aggregation when same principal, location, and drug facts show ongoing pattern)
- United States v. Ortiz, 431 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir.) (assessing relevant conduct focuses on similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity)
- United States v. Wilson, 504 F.3d 718 (7th Cir.) (district court must state and support findings when aggregating charged and uncharged drug quantities)
- United States v. Williams, 272 F.3d 845 (7th Cir.) ("magic words" not required where record clearly shows district court found required relationship)