United States v. Hicks
418 F. App'x 534
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hicks was a shift supervisor for a street gang operating at the Square housing complex in Chicago, overseeing crack cocaine sales.
- The conspiracy averaged about $15,000 in drug sales daily and operated continuously for about two years.
- Suppliers provided cocaine, heroin, and marijuana to Square residents who stored and redistributed drugs to Hicks and other supervisors.
- Hicks pled guilty to distributing crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and received a 292-month sentence, the bottom of the 292–865 month range.
- Counsel filed an Anders motion to withdraw; Hicks did not respond, and the court limited review to issues in the Anders brief.
- The district court attributed 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine to Hicks and applied a three-level upward adjustment for supervisory role; Hicks contends for less quantity and challenges the adjustment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court overstated Hicks's drug quantity | Hicks argues he was absent during part of the conspiracy and should be limited to 1.5 kg. | State that Hicks was never absent; quantities for him and foreseeable coconspirators apply. | 4.5 kg properly attributed; no reduction warranted. |
| Whether the supervisory role adjustment under § 3B1.1 was appropriate | Hicks lacked hiring/firing power, arguing no supervisory role. | Presence of relative responsibility and control supports the adjustment. | Adjustment upheld; Hicks recruited dealers and controlled distributions. |
| Whether Hicks's sentence is unreasonably high | Challenge as unreasonable given the governing guidelines and departures. | Sentence within the guidelines and presumptively reasonable; substantial justification exists. | Sentence presumptively reasonable; challenge frivolous. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turner, 604 F.3d 381 (7th Cir. 2010) (recapitulates principles on factual quantity and foreseeable conduct)
- United States v. Isom, 635 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2011) (guidelines sentencing arguments; evidence must be specific)
- United States v. Vallar, 635 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 2011) (application of § 3B1.1 supervisory role adjustment)
- United States v. Curb, 626 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholds § 3B1.1 adjustment in similar circumstances)
- United States v. Doe, 613 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010) (supports application of supervisory role adjustment)