555 F. App'x 108
2d Cir.2014Background
- Handy and Hammett were charged in a Connecticut district court for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and related possession counts; Handy moved to suppress evidence which the district court denied; Hammett pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 240 months; appellate review concerns suppression ruling, sufficiency of Handy’s evidence, and Hammett’s sentence; Handy challenges the buyer-seller conspiracy framework and the sufficiency of evidence for Counts 2, 3, and 5; the panel affirms the district court’s rulings.
- The district court found, and the record supports, that the red bag containing a digital scale found near Handy constituted plain view evidence of a drug crime, enabling seizure of the scale and related items.
- Handy was observed with 28 grams of crack on May 10, 2010, and with cash, scale, and cell phones on June 17, 2010, supporting counts for possession with intent to distribute.
- The district court’s sentencing of Hammett applied a 1:1 crack/powder ratio and emphasized his prior history, resulting in a 240-month sentence within the reduced guidelines range.
- The Second Circuit affirms the district court’s suppression ruling, finds the evidence sufficient, and holds Hammett’s sentence not substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain-view suppression standard applied? | Handy contends suppression was improper. | Handy argues plain view was misapplied. | Affirmed suppression denial. |
| Sufficiency of Handy’s conspiracy and possession evidence? | Handy asserts no conspiratorial agreement; buyer-seller rule applies. | Prosecution showed shared conspiratorial purpose. | Evidence sufficient; no plain error. |
| Buyer-seller rule applicability to conspiracy? | Handy claims no joint conspiratorial objective. | Frequent dealings show shared illegal objectives. | Rule does not bar conspiracy conviction here. |
| Reasonableness of Hammett’s sentence? | Hammett seeks more lenient sentence given circumstances. | Court properly weighed seriousness and deterrence. | Sentence substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Edelman, 726 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; factual findings clear error, legal conclusions de novo)
- United States v. Ivezaj, 568 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2009) (review of suppression in light of plain-view doctrine)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1987) (plain-view probable cause requirement; immediate incriminating character)
- United States v. Gamble, 388 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2004) (plain-view seizure principles applied)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (plain-view seizure context; probable cause to seize items in plain view)
- United States v. Parker, 554 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2009) (buyer-seller rule; conspiratorial purpose may extend beyond buyer/seller pair)
- United States v. Hawkins, 547 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2008) (analysis of conspiratorial activity and liability beyond simple buyer-seller swap)
- United States v. Finley, 245 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2001) (standard for plain-error review when defendant fails to renew Rule 29 motion)
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (substantive reasonableness of sentence; deferential review)