United States v. Isom, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4972

Isom was convicted by a jury of three counts of distributing crack cocaine and was sentenced to 262 months, with the district court using a relevant-conduct finding of about 600 grams.
Three controlled buys described at trial: first, about 6 grams via Nancy Rose in a van; second, 5.5 grams in a Doritos bag; third, 61.3 grams from a trash can at Wendy's; Rose testified to Isom's involvement.
The presentence report attributed 537.28 grams to Rose and Coffey, plus 9 grams from two uncharged sales, for a total of 619.08 grams as relevant conduct.
The district court adopted this calculation, found the evidence credible, and calculated a guideline range of 262–327 months based on a 34 base offense level, +3 for leadership, and criminal history category III.
On appeal, Isom argued the district court overstated relevant conduct and that coconspirator statements used to justify the 537.28 grams were unreliable hearsay; he also claimed ineffective assistance for not raising the Kimbrough issue.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the relevant-conduct finding was based on reliable evidence, rejecting the notion of a sentencing-era presumption of unreliability for coconspirator statements, and noting the ineffective-assistance claim was appropriately considered but withdrawn.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was 537.28 g properly included as relevant conduct?	Isom contends hearsay and unreliability.	Isom argues the quantity is unreliable and overstates liability.	Relied on reliable evidence; affirmed.
Are coconspirator statements unreliable at sentencing?	Isom seeks a presumption of unreliability under Jones.	Government urges no sentencing presumption; reliability can be shown.	No presumption; statements found reliable for sentencing.
Was trial counsel ineffective for not raising Kimbrough at sentencing?	Isom's counsel was ineffective for not raising the Kimbrough issue.	Claim should be considered post-appeal or plain error; record inadequate.	Counsel's ineffectiveness claim withdrawn; not addressed on direct appeal.
Did the court properly credit Rose and Coffey's reliability to support the 537.28 g finding?	Isom disputes reliability of coconspirator accounts.	Government showed internal consistency and corroboration; reliable.	Evidence deemed reliable; properly credited.

United States v. Jones, 371 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2004) (sentencing evidentiary reliability standard for coconspirators)
United States v. Santiago, 495 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2007) (reliability concerns with coconspirator confessions in sentencing)
United States v. House, 551 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2008) (no confrontation-clause-style reliability presumption at sentencing)
United States v. Johnson, 489 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2007) (trial vs. sentencing evidentiary standards for coconspirator statements)
United States v. Artley, 489 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2007) (reliability of presentence evidence and corroboration standards)
United States v. Moncivais, 492 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2007) (assessments of reliability in the sentencing context)
United States v. Aviles-Solarzano, 623 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2010) (reliability of presentence reports and hearsay details)
United States v. Westmoreland, 240 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2001) (reliability considerations for sentencing evidence)