United States v. Eric Cheek
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1185
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Eric Cheek was convicted by a jury of multiple federal drug offenses based on a long-running distribution conspiracy (crack and marijuana) documented by cooperating witnesses, recorded controlled buys, and over 20,000 intercepted communications; he had numerous prior drug convictions.
- The government filed a § 851 information seeking enhanced penalties based on prior felony drug convictions but the district court did not strictly comply with § 851(b) at sentencing.
- At trial the government used stipulations to admit recordings and provided the jury written transcripts containing bracketed interpretive glosses of code words (some interpretations reflected Agent Catey’s understanding).
- FBI Special Agent Greg Catey testified about meanings of code words, technical matters (wiretap process), and price/quantity conventions; Cheek did not object at trial.
- The PSR applied enhancements (leader role, use of a minor, obstruction of justice for a letter to a teen), producing a Guidelines range of 360 months to life; the court sentenced Cheek to 576 months (concurrent sentences).
Issues
| Issue | Cheek’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Agent Catey’s testimony as expert/lay | Catey impermissibly gave expert opinions (meaning of code words, prices, technical terms) without Rule 702 reliability or Rule 16 disclosure | Catey’s interpretations derived from his personal involvement in the case and were admissible lay testimony; even if expert, harmless or noticed | Court: No plain error — testimony was properly treated as lay (based on this investigation); any error harmless given corroborating evidence and conceded qualifications |
| Jury access to transcripts with bracketed interpretations | Transcript glosses improperly bolstered government, usurped jury factfinding | District courts have discretion to provide transcripts; defense had stipulated and raised no contemporaneous objection; interpretations were corroborated | Court: No plain error; even if error, harmless given strength of evidence |
| §851(b) procedure and Apprendi challenge | Failure to follow § 851(b) inquiry and failure to submit prior-conviction fact to jury violated Apprendi/constitutional rights | Most § 851 priors were older than five years so Cheek could not challenge them under § 851(e); Apprendi excludes prior convictions from its rule | Court: No reversible error; § 851 defect if any was harmless and Apprendi does not apply to the fact of prior convictions |
| Sentencing enhancements, §3553(a) consideration, substantive reasonableness | Obstruction enhancement improper; court failed to meaningfully consider mitigation and de facto life sentence is substantively unreasonable | Letter to teen sought to influence witness — supports obstruction; court considered §3553(a) factors; within‑Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable | Court: Obstruction enhancement supported (or harmless if error); court adequately considered mitigation; 576‑month within‑Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. York, 572 F.3d 415 (7th Cir. 2009) (permitting dual role of law‑enforcement witness but noting risks)
- United States v. Rollins, 544 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2008) (agent’s interpretations of code words admissible as lay testimony when based on personal investigation)
- United States v. Moreland, 703 F.3d 976 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing lay vs. expert testimony about drug code words)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (rule that facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury; excludes the fact of a prior conviction)
- United States v. Breland, 356 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004) (district court’s discretion to provide transcripts as aids when tapes are played)
- United States v. Taylor, 637 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for obstruction enhancement findings)
- United States v. Vallar, 635 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirming long within‑Guidelines sentence given egregious criminal history)
- United States v. Flores, 5 F.3d 1070 (7th Cir. 1993) (district court need not follow § 851(b) ritual where defendant cannot legally challenge the prior)