United States v. Duncan
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8301
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Duncan was part of Troy Lawrence's crack trafficking organization in Chicago Heights from 1999 to March 2002.
- He pled guilty to conspiracy and related offenses, admitting roles as a packman and lookout, with awareness of stash locations.
- The PSR concluded his base level was 38 and attributed 137 kilograms of crack to him.
- At sentencing (Sept. 7, 2005), he received a 2-level weapon enhancement, a 2-level enhancement for within 1000 feet of a school, and a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, yielding an offense level of 39.
- The U.S. Attorney's Office recommended a 174-month sentence under a § 5K1.1 motion; the Court imposed 174 months.
- In May 2009 Duncan filed a pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction; the district court denied based on 4.5 kilograms threshold under the amended guidelines and the conclusion that he was responsible for well over 4.5 kilograms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could make new factual findings for §3582(c)(2). | Duncan argues the court cannot base new findings on the PSR not adopted at sentencing. | The government contends new findings supported by record are allowed if not inconsistent with original sentencing. | Yes; new, record-supported findings are permissible if not inconsistent with original determination. |
| Whether Duncan was properly held responsible for at least 4.5 kilograms of crack. | Duncan contends he was not accountable for that amount and the PSR overstates his role. | The district court did not err in finding the quantity exceeded 4.5 kg given conspiracy scope and foreseeability. | Yes; record supports accountability for at least 4.5 kilograms. |
| Whether the district court relied on the PSR at sentencing or erred in §3582(c)(2) proceedings. | Duncan notes the court did not explicitly adopt the PSR at sentencing. | Reliance on the PSR is permissible for §3582(c)(2) proceedings even if not adopted verbatim at sentencing. | District court permissible to rely on PSR analysis for §3582(c)(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Woods, 581 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009) (cannot make findings inconsistent with original sentencing, but may make new, supported findings)
- United States v. Hall, 600 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2010) (district court may rely on PSR in §3582(c)(2) proceedings)
- United States v. Seymour, 519 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2008) (conspiracy liability for reasonably foreseeable quantities)
- United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2009) (Amendment 706 affects only defendants responsible for <4.5 kg)
- United States v. Hollins, 498 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2007) (foreseeability tied to scope of the conspiracy)
- United States v. Artley, 489 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2007) (PSR accuracy burden on defendant; court may rely on PSR analysis)