United States v. Elston Henry
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2690
7th Cir.2016Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin (21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841) and to using/possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)).
- Sentenced to 152 months imprisonment; appeal challenges sentence length and supervised-release term/conditions.
- Defendant recruited Arsenio Purifoy to sell heroin, supplied the heroin, set the price ($100/gram) and instructed Purifoy to remit $80 per gram to defendant (keeping $20).
- District court applied a 2-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) for being a manager/supervisor of a jointly operated drug activity.
- Defendant assisted in purchasing a gun for Purifoy and Purifoy lived in defendant’s home; defendant admitted recruiting Purifoy.
- Government conceded error as to supervised-release findings and conditions, and recommended vacatur and full resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 3B1.1(c) two-level manager/supervisor enhancement | Enhancement appropriate because defendant recruited, directed, set compensation, planned activity, and supplied tools (gun) — manager role | Enhancement unwarranted because no close day-to-day supervision of Purifoy’s retail sales | Enhancement affirmed: recruitment, direction, wage-setting, equipment, and control support manager role even without day-to-day oversight |
| Sufficiency of facts supporting supervised-release length and special conditions | Government conceded district judge failed to make required individualized findings under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(d) | Defendant sought vacatur/modification of supervised-release based on lack of required findings and problematic conditions | Court accepted government concession, vacated judgment as to supervised release and remanded for full resentencing |
| Validity of probation officer home/elsewhere visit and plain-view confiscation condition | Probation condition improperly vague and unsupported; judge failed to explain need in this case | District court imposed broad condition without time/reasonableness limits | Condition criticized: must be justified and limited (e.g., reasonable hours or mutual convenience); remand for reconsideration and proper findings |
| Interplay between prison term and supervised release | Changes in one may warrant adjustments in the other to achieve appropriate mix of restrictions | Defendant contended supervised-release errors require resentencing to adjust overall sentence package | Court agreed that imprisonment and supervised release are interrelated and remanded for full resentencing to optimize both components |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mendoza, 576 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2009) (recruitment supports manager/supervisor inference)
- United States v. Downs, 784 F.3d 1180 (7th Cir. 2015) (imprisonment and supervised release are interrelated; changes in one may warrant changes in the other)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (requirements for individualized findings and limits on supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (scrutiny of broad home-visit and plain-view confiscation conditions)
- United States v. Poulin, 809 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 2016) (criticizing certain supervised-release conditions lacking individualized justification)
- United States v. Armour, 804 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2015) (endorsing qualified home-visit condition with reasonable-hours and emergency/investigation exceptions)