United States v. Demond Glover
816 F.3d 468
7th Cir.2016Background
- Federal wiretaps, confidential informants, video surveillance, and witness testimony linked Anthony Lomax, Brandon Lomax, and Demond Glover to heroin distribution centered at Brandon’s business, Spray’Em Auto Body.
- Government presented evidence of wiretapped calls, shared customers (e.g., “Fat-Fat”), pooled funds/product, and movements between suppliers and sellers over a multi-month investigation.
- Brandon and Demond were shown to share suppliers, customers, and to pool money/product; Anthony purchased heroin primarily from Brandon (and at least once from Demond) and resold to his own customers.
- A jury convicted all three of conspiracy to distribute 1,000+ grams of heroin; Brandon received life (based on two prior drug felonies), Anthony 400 months, Demond 330 months.
- On appeal the court affirmed Brandon’s and Demond’s convictions and sentences, but vacated Anthony’s conviction and remanded for a new trial because the district court refused to give a buyer-seller jury instruction that the evidence warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Brandon and Demond formed a conspiracy | Gov: wiretaps, shared supplier/customers, pooled funds/product show agreement and common goal | Brandon/Demond: acted independently, merely separate businesses | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support conspiracy conviction for Brandon and Demond |
| Whether Anthony was entitled to a buyer‑seller jury instruction | Anthony: evidence showed he mainly purchased from Brandon and resold independently — at least a buyer-seller relationship | Gov: evidence showed strong integration with the conspiracy; instruction unnecessary | Reversed (as to Anthony): court held jury could rationally find a mere buyer-seller relationship; refusal to instruct denied Anthony a fair trial; new trial ordered |
| Constitutionality of sentence enhancement based on prior convictions (Brandon) | Brandon: Alleyne requires any fact increasing mandatory minimum be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt | Gov: prior-conviction enhancement is exempt under Almendarez‑Torres | Affirmed: Almendarez‑Torres controls; prior convictions need not be jury-found; sentence affirmed |
| Whether Demond’s career-offender designation (post‑Johnson) requires resentencing | Demond: one prior (vehicular flight) no longer counts post-Johnson; criminal-history category would drop but guideline range unchanged; requests remand | Gov: court erred but error harmless because guideline range and sentence unaffected | Affirmed: error harmless — district court did not rely on career-offender calculation and sentence remains appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (prior-conviction exception to jury factfinding)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (facts increasing mandatory minimum generally must be found by jury)
- Cruse v. United States, 805 F.3d 795 (standards for buyer-seller instruction review and harmless-error discussion)
- Meyer v. United States, 157 F.3d 1067 (legal-sufficiency standard for entitlement to a defense instruction)
- Villasenor v. United States, 664 F.3d 673 (characteristics distinguishing conspiracy from buyer-seller)
- Sachsenmaier v. United States, 491 F.3d 680 (selling on same side of a transaction can support conspiracy)
- Harris v. United States, 567 F.3d 846 (sharing resources/pooling money supports conspiracy)
- Taylor v. United States, 600 F.3d 863 (elements required to prove narcotics conspiracy)