United States v. Faith Blake
695 F. App'x 859
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Faith Blake owned and operated two Chattanooga clinics (Elite Care and Superior One) that functioned as "pill mills," issuing medically unnecessary prescriptions for controlled substances; she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, failure to appear, and obstruction of the internal revenue laws.
- As part of her plea, Blake stipulated that most prescriptions from the clinics were not for a medical purpose and that she fled after indictment and failed to appear.
- The PSR attributed 28 kg of oxycodone (very large marijuana-equivalency), producing a Guidelines offense level of 38, then recommended multiple enhancements (weapons, maintaining premises, obstruction, pattern-as-livelihood, leadership), yielding an adjusted level of 50 but capped at 43 and a Guidelines term of 600 months.
- Blake objected to each enhancement and sought a downward variance; the district court overruled objections but granted a variance, imposing 528 months’ imprisonment.
- Blake appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness and that several Guideline enhancements were erroneous or unconstitutionally vague.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of §2D1.1(b)(12) (maintenance of premises) | Blake: No drugs were "distributed" at clinics so enhancement inapplicable | Government/District Ct: Issuing prescriptions qualifies as distribution; Blake ran/maintained clinics that issued unnecessary prescriptions | Court: Enhancement proper; prescriptions count as distribution under controlling precedent |
| Applicability of §3C1.1 (obstruction) | Blake: Enhancement improper because sentence already includes obstruction count; ambiguous challenge | Government/District Ct: Enhancement may apply separate from conviction; governed by Sixth Circuit precedent | Court: Applied Green; enhancement valid and controlling precedent binds panel |
| §2D1.1(b)(1) (possession of a weapon) | Blake: Government failed to prove she possessed weapons; co‑workers with guns were unindicted, not co‑defendants | Government/District Ct: Firearms carried by staff were within relevant conduct and reasonably foreseeable; constructive possession shown | Court: Finding not clearly erroneous; enhancement applies because co‑conspirators’ weapon possession was foreseeable |
| Substantive reasonableness / sentencing disparity | Blake: 528 months is unwarranted and disparate vs other defendants | Government/District Ct: Court considered §3553(a) factors, varied downward from Guidelines, and disparity comparisons relied on lower drug quantities | Court: Sentence substantively reasonable; Blake failed to rebut presumption of reasonableness for below‑Guidelines sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentence review standard and deference to district court)
- Green v. United States, 305 F.3d 422 (6th Cir.) (application of obstruction enhancement)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (Guidelines not susceptible to vagueness Due Process challenge)
- Johnson v. United States, 737 F.3d 444 (6th Cir.) (interpreting §2D1.1(b)(12) in light of §856 precedent)
- Hough v. United States, 276 F.3d 884 (6th Cir.) (government burden to prove constructive possession; shifting burden)
- Woods v. United States, 604 F.3d 286 (6th Cir.) (foreseeability of co‑conspirator conduct for weapon enhancement)
- Flowers v. United States, 818 F.2d 464 (6th Cir.) (prescribing a controlled substance can constitute distribution)
- Coppenger v. United States, 775 F.3d 799 (6th Cir.) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing review)