United States v. Demond Baker
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9344
6th Cir.2017Background
- Baker pled guilty (2015) to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroin; plea agreement stipulated 100–200 grams of cocaine and set offense level 12 (Guidelines range 21–27 months).
- Baker had Criminal History Category IV; government agreed to recommend sentencing within range agreed by parties.
- At sentencing the district court doubted the agreed drug quantity, reviewed Baker’s confidential proffer (which it said it would not use) and other evidence, and found Baker responsible for 500 g–2 kg of cocaine.
- The court relied primarily on a recorded post-arrest prison phone call in which Baker referenced an undiscovered $12,500 (combined with $3,500 seized cash the court treated as drug proceeds) and converted cash to drug weight using market-price evidence.
- Using the increased drug weight, the court set a Guidelines range of 51–63 months and sentenced Baker to 50 months (a downward variance).
- Baker appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness arising from use of the proffer and the drug-quantity finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court improperly used Baker’s confidential proffer in calculating Guidelines | Baker: court impermissibly relied on proffer and thus used self-incriminating cooperation material to increase sentence | Gov't/court: court reviewed proffer but explicitly declined to base Guidelines on it; review alone not prohibited | Court: Reviewing a proffer is not per se forbidden; court did not abuse discretion but urged caution when courts see unusable proffers |
| Whether the district court clearly erred attributing 500 g–2 kg of cocaine | Baker: weight finding unsupported and improperly derived from proffer/hearsay | Court/Gov't: weight supported by recorded call about $12,500, $3,500 seized, and drug-price testimony converting cash to drug quantity | Court: No clear error; recorded call and cash conversion met minimal reliability to estimate drug quantity |
| Whether the sentence was procedurally unreasonable | Baker: court failed to calculate Guidelines properly and relied on erroneous facts | Court/Gov't: court properly calculated range, considered §3553(a), and explained its reasons | Court: No procedural abuse of discretion; Guidelines calculation acceptable and court explained its decision |
| Whether the 50-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Baker: variance still unreasonable given original plea range and circumstances | Court/Gov't: within-Guidelines (and below) sentence presumptively reasonable; court considered mitigating arguments and §3553(a) factors | Court: Sentence was substantively reasonable; presumption not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Coppenger v. United States, 775 F.3d 799 (6th Cir.) (standard of review for sentencing challenges)
- Adkins v. United States, 729 F.3d 559 (6th Cir.) (procedural and substantive unreasonableness framework)
- Woods v. United States, 604 F.3d 286 (6th Cir.) (clear-error review of factual findings vs. de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Lay v. United States, 583 F.3d 436 (6th Cir.) (appellate standard refusing reversal absent definite and firm conviction of mistake)
- Sandridge v. United States, 385 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir.) (permitting drug-quantity estimates supported by minimally reliable evidence)
- Russell v. United States, 595 F.3d 633 (6th Cir.) (requirement to prove amount of money attributable to drug activity and conversion ratio)
- Stout v. United States, 599 F.3d 549 (6th Cir.) (describing minimal-indicia-of-reliability standard as low)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Sup. Ct.) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Vonner v. United States, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir.) (applying presumption of reasonableness to Guidelines sentences)
- Jackson v. United States, 635 F.3d 205 (6th Cir.) (limitations on using cooperation disclosures to affect sentencing and related precedent)
- Miller v. United States, 910 F.2d 1321 (6th Cir.) (discussion of USSG § 1B1.8 limitations)
- Owusu v. United States, 199 F.3d 329 (6th Cir.) (evidentiary standards for drug-quantity findings)