United States v. Craig
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22434
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant Christopher Craig pleaded guilty (2013) to: conspiracy to manufacture/possess with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§ 841 & 846; 18 U.S.C. § 2) and two counts for use of a communication facility (21 U.S.C. § 843(b)).
- During the conspiracy period Craig organized an August 2012 attempted robbery of rival dealer Brandon Campbell, recruiting DaRyan and Arterrius Pryor, supplying guns and masks, and driving/observing the attempt; DaRyan was shot and later died.
- The PSR treated DaRyan’s death as relevant conduct and applied the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1) murder cross‑reference, raising the base offense level to 43; added a four‑level § 3B1.1(a) leadership enhancement and a two‑level § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement (refusal to provide a court‑ordered voice exemplar), yielding a Guidelines life sentence on the conspiracy count.
- At sentencing Craig objected to the murder cross‑reference, leadership, and obstruction enhancements and argued the life sentence was substantively unreasonable; the district court adopted the PSR and imposed life imprisonment (conspiracy) and concurrent 48 months on the communication counts.
- On appeal Craig challenged (1) whether DaRyan’s death was relevant conduct supporting the § 2D1.1(d) cross‑reference, (2) the § 3B1.1(a) leadership enhancement, (3) the § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement, and (4) substantive reasonableness of the life sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov’t) | Defendant's Argument (Craig) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DaRyan’s death was "relevant conduct" under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 and thus triggered the § 2D1.1(d) murder cross‑reference | Evidence and circumstantial proof tied the robbery/death to the drug conspiracy (DaRyan worked for Craig, robbery targeted a rival dealer to get a kilo), supporting cross‑reference by preponderance | No evidence connected the attempted robbery or death to the conspiracy; death was not relevant conduct to the conspiracy conviction | Affirmed: preponderance of circumstantial evidence linked the robbery/death to the conspiracy; cross‑reference properly applied |
| Whether § 3B1.1(a) four‑level leadership enhancement was warranted | Craig organized/recruited participants, supplied weapons and direction; supervised at least one participant in an enterprise with five or more people | Leadership limited to a single robbery episode and too minor to qualify for enhancement | Affirmed: court reasonably found Craig organized and led at least one participant; enhancement proper |
| Whether § 3C1.1 two‑level obstruction enhancement applied for refusal to provide voice exemplar | Court order to produce voice exemplar; refusal and contempt constituted an attempted obstruction related to the offense; plea did not purge the attempt | Guilty plea purged any obstruction; no actual interference with prosecution | Affirmed: § 3C1.1 covers attempts; refusal to comply was an attempt to obstruct and plea did not erase it |
| Whether life sentence was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Within‑Guidelines life sentence reflected relevant conduct, leadership, and obstruction; district court did not abuse discretion | Life sentence (young defendant, limited prior incarceration) is disproportionate and unreasonable, especially given preponderance standard for relevant conduct | Affirmed: within‑Guidelines sentence entitled to presumption of reasonableness; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Doe, 398 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2005) (standards for reviewing Guidelines application and factual findings)
- United States v. Caldwell, 585 F.3d 1347 (10th Cir. 2009) (relevant‑conduct review framework)
- United States v. Hutchinson, 573 F.3d 1011 (10th Cir. 2009) (drug organizations use violence to protect market; circumstantial proof appropriate)
- United States v. O'Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (2010) (preponderance standard for sentencing enhancements)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (relevant conduct may be proven by preponderance)
- United States v. Scott, 405 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2005) (distinguishable precedent on what conduct warrants obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Carter, 510 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2007) (§ 3C1.1 applies to attempted obstruction)
- United States v. Maccado, 225 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (a plea does not erase an actual or attempted obstruction)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (post‑Booker discretionary sentencing context)