United States v. Ellis
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16173
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- DEA investigated a Mexican cocaine-trafficking network supplying Kansas City; Marvin Ellis was a low-level buyer who, with two others, bought powder cocaine and sometimes cooked it into crack.
- In May 2012 Ellis fled a traffic stop; officers recovered a stolen loaded .40 pistol, multiple drugs, a scale, and baggie materials.
- A 112-count Second Superseding Indictment charged Ellis (among 50 others) with a wide § 846 conspiracy alleging at least 5 kg powder and 280 g crack; the government filed a § 851 information to enhance sentencing based on two prior drug felonies.
- At trial the jury convicted Ellis on all counts. The verdict form did not ask jurors to allocate drug-quantity findings to individual defendants; the court’s instructions omitted a foreseeability-specific instruction.
- District court sentenced Ellis to life without release on the conspiracy count (under § 841(b)(1)(A) with § 851 enhancement), concurrent/max sentences on other counts, and a mandatory 5-year § 924(c) term; the Tenth Circuit affirmed convictions but vacated the life sentence and remanded for resentencing under § 841(b)(1)(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ellis) | Defendant's Argument (Govt.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support conspiracy conviction at the charged drug-quantity levels | Ellis argued the government failed to prove 5 kg powder or 280 g crack were reasonably foreseeable to him, so conviction/sentence on aggravated § 841(b)(1)(A) cannot stand | Govt. argued conviction under § 846/§ 841(a)(1) requires only proof of conspiracy to distribute any quantity; quantity affects sentence not guilt and conspiracy-wide amounts suffice | Conviction under § 846 (§ 841(a)(1)) affirmed as to guilt for unspecified quantity (b)(1)(C) offense; but failure to have jury find individual quantity undermined enhanced sentence under (b)(1)(A) |
| Whether imposing enhanced mandatory-minimum (life under § 841(b)(1)(A) with § 851) without jury finding of individually attributable quantity violated Alleyne | Ellis: Alleyne requires any fact that increases mandatory minimum to be found by a jury beyond reasonable doubt — here individual drug-quantity element was not found by jury | Govt.: The general guilty verdict and invited revisions to the verdict form waived or satisfied quantity requirement; Stiger allows conspiracy-wide quantity to set sentencing range | Alleyne error occurred; jury must find individually attributable quantity that raises mandatory minimum. The court reversed the life sentence because error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and remanded for resentencing under § 841(b)(1)(C) |
| Whether Stiger permits applying conspiracy-wide drug quantities to impose mandatory-minimum-enhanced sentences for small participants | Ellis: Stiger should not allow small participants to be sentenced on cartel-wide quantities absent proof they were integral or amounts were reasonably foreseeable to them | Govt.: Stiger supports using conspiracy-wide quantities for sentencing; general verdict suffices to reach enhanced range | Court limited Stiger: conspiracy-wide maximum may inform sentencing, but Alleyne/Dewberry require jury findings for any fact that increases a statutory mandatory minimum; Stiger does not permit automatic life for low-level participants |
| Whether district court violated Sixth Amendment/right to counsel by denying substitute counsel at sentencing and supervised-release revocation | Ellis argued breakdown of attorney-client relationship and requested substitute counsel; denial violated right to counsel and warrants resentencing with new counsel | Govt. defended district court’s handling; noted warnings and options given, and some claims were perfunctory on appeal | Claims rendered moot as court ordered full resentencing and directed appointment of different counsel for resentencing; supervised-release counsel claim was waived on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (any fact that increases a statutory mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to a jury)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omitted jury finding on an element requires harmless-error review beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Stiger, 413 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2005) (conspiracy-wide drug-quantity can set the statutory maximum, but district court determines individual-quantity floor)
- United States v. Dewberry, 790 F.3d 1022 (10th Cir. 2015) (post-Alleyne: where enhanced mandatory minimum depends on drug weight, that quantity is an element that the jury must find)
- United States v. Arias-Santos, 39 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 1994) (a defendant may be accountable for coconspirators’ drug quantities that were within the scope of the agreement and reasonably foreseeable to the defendant)