United States v. Dahda
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5792
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Roosevelt Dahda was convicted on multiple counts in a Kansas-centered marijuana-distribution conspiracy and sentenced to 201 months imprisonment and $16,985,250 forfeiture.
- Count One charged participation in a single conspiracy involving 1,000+ kg of marijuana; much trial evidence came from authorized wiretaps.
- Trial evidence showed Roosevelt drove a truck with a hidden compartment, relayed requests about California grows, shipped boxes to a California grower, picked up and sold marijuana in Kansas, and discussed lost seizures with co-conspirators.
- The district court, adopting the PSR, attributed 1,600 pounds (725.7 kg) of marijuana to Roosevelt for sentencing (base offense level 28), then varied upward 33 months for alleged manipulation of a co-defendant.
- On appeal Roosevelt raised seven challenges (sufficiency, variance, wiretap suppression, statutory maximum/jury findings, drug-quantity attribution, substantive reasonableness of variance, and forfeiture formalities/amount).
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed convictions and forfeiture but remanded for resentencing because the district court clearly erred in estimating pallet weights used to attribute 1,600 pounds to Roosevelt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roosevelt) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Roosevelt joined single 1,000+ kg conspiracy | Evidence showed only multiple smaller conspiracies; Roosevelt didn’t join the large conspiracy | Record (including hidden-compartment truck, shipments, sales, communications) supports membership in the large conspiracy | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to find Roosevelt knowingly participated in the single large conspiracy |
| Variance between indictment (single large conspiracy) and trial evidence | Trial proved multiple smaller conspiracies, not the charged single conspiracy | Jury could find a single conspiracy; no prejudicial variance occurred | Affirmed: no prejudicial variance |
| Motion to suppress wiretap evidence (territorial defects) | Wiretap orders exceeded district court territorial jurisdiction; suppression required | Orders were facially deficient but suppression not warranted | Affirmed denial of suppression (followed companion Los Dahda ruling) |
| Whether jury’s failure to specify drug quantity made the sentence exceed statutory maximum | Because jury did not expressly find quantity, sentence may exceed statutory maximum tied to quantity | Defense counsel expressly agreed §841(b)(1)(C) applied; jury verdict on Count One required finding of 1,000+ kg; no error | Affirmed: issue waived by invited error; alternatively no plain error |
| Quantity of marijuana attributable to Roosevelt for Guidelines (1,600 lb) | Court improperly attributed shipments/weights he did not foresee and clearly erred in assuming 80 lb per pallet average | PSR estimate was reasonable; testimony supported 80 lb toward end of conspiracy | Reversed in part: district court clearly erred in using 80-lb-per-pallet estimate; remand for resentencing to reassess attributable quantity |
| Upward variance (33 months) for manipulating co-defendant | District court lacked evidence that Roosevelt pressured co-defendant; variance unreasonable | Court relied on letters and safety-valve proceedings showing manipulation; variance justified | Affirmed: variance substantively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion |
| Forfeiture procedures and amount ($16,985,250) | District court failed to enter preliminary forfeiture order and final judgment omitted amount; forfeiture should be vacated | Defendant had notice; omission was correctable clerical error; amount supported | Affirmed forfeiture amount; procedural omission harmless or correctable under Rule 36 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yehling, 456 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Wardell, 591 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2010) (elements for conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Caro, 965 F.2d 1548 (10th Cir. 1992) (minor role can still support conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Anaya, 727 F.3d 1043 (10th Cir. 2013) (installing hidden compartments supported conspiracy liability)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (waiver vs. plain-error framework)
- United States v. Roberts, 14 F.3d 502 (10th Cir. 1993) (rejecting speculative extrapolation of drug quantities)
- United States v. Richards, 27 F.3d 465 (10th Cir. 1994) (insufficiently reliable testimony cannot support quantity estimates)
- United States v. Sells, 541 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2008) (co-conspirator conduct attributable if within scope and reasonably foreseeable)
- United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2007) (plain-error standard explained for appellate review)