United States v. Harrison
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3466
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant Leslie Susan Harrison was convicted by a jury of conspiring to manufacture and distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.
- The district court sentenced Harrison to 360 months in prison.
- Harrison appeals on five grounds: drug quantity, minor-safety enhancement, organizer/supervisor enhancement, criminal-history points for relevant conduct, and substantive reasonableness.
- We agree the PSR-based quantity was not supported by trial testimony and was improperly adopted by the district court.
- The PSR cited a 1.95 kg calculation not supported by trial evidence; the district court erred in relying on it.
- Because the quantity error may affect the sentence and other issues may be moot on remand, we vacate and remand for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drug quantity basis for offense level | Harrison argues PSR quantity was not supported by trial evidence and the court relied on the PSR without proper proof. | Harrison contends the quantity determination rests on trial testimony and should be affirmed only if proven. | Reversed; quantity error remanded for resentencing. |
| Preservation and adequacy of objection to PSR | The objection to the PSR quantity was properly raised and preserved at sentencing. | The government contends the objection was not specific enough to preserve the issue. | Preserved; reviewed for clear error. |
| Substantial risk of harm to a minor (b(13)(D)) | Evidence supported a substantial risk enhancement. | Evidence in the record did not clearly establish the required quantity or risk. | Not resolved on remand due to other issues; potential consideration on remand. |
| Organizational role enhancement (3B1.1(c)) | District court properly applied organizer/supervisor enhancement based on facts. | Necessary factual findings were not made to support the enhancement. | Remanded; issue potentially moot after remand. |
| Criminal-history points for relevant conduct (4A1.2) and substantive reasonableness | Points for relevant conduct were improper; sentence should be reviewed for reasonableness. | Points and weighting were appropriate given conduct; no basis to alter sentence otherwise. | Remanded; these issues may be moot after resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jarvi, 537 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2008) (preservation and consideration of objections to PSR)
- United States v. Dunbar, 718 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2013) (pro se objections by counsel defendants)
- United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2007) (court may consider untimely objections for good cause)
- United States v. Winder, 557 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2009) (defendant must alert district court to precise ground)
- United States v. Kaufman, 546 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (harmless-error standard for PSR-based errors; modest reliance on trial evidence)
- United States v. Padilla, 947 F.2d 893 (10th Cir. 1991) (necessity of determining whether error affected the sentence)
- United States v. Massey, 48 F.3d 1560 (10th Cir. 1995) (remand when necessary factual findings are missing)
- United States v. Mendoza, 543 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2008) (review of district court factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Anderson, 189 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 1999) (appellate review of evidentiary support for quantity findings)