United States v. Jason Austin
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20220
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Jason Austin led a street-level heroin/crack operation at Kedzie and Ohio in Chicago from 2008–2010; operation used pack workers, bundle runners/managers, and supplied higher-level figures.
- After a double murder in August 2008 (off-duty Detective Soto and Kathryn Romberg), state murder charges against Austin were dismissed; a subsequent federal investigation led to a drug conspiracy indictment and convictions for five distributions and one conspiracy count (jury found less than 100 grams of heroin for the conviction).
- At sentencing the district court relied heavily on co-conspirator Jeffrey Scott’s testimony, controlled buys, surveillance, and other witnesses to estimate gross sales and attributable drug quantity over Austin’s relevant conduct period.
- The district court attributed over 10 kilograms of heroin to Austin for guideline purposes, applied enhancements for firearm involvement, leadership role, and use of minors, and treated Austin as a career offender (Guidelines offense level 43, Criminal History VI), resulting in a 35-year sentence.
- Austin appealed, arguing (1) Scott’s testimony was not credible so the drug-quantity finding was clear error, (2) Alleyne precluded judicial fact-finding to attribute more drugs than the jury convicted him of, and (3) the court erred in applying a four-level leader/organizer enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Austin) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court clearly erred in attributing >10 kg heroin based on Jeffrey Scott’s testimony | Scott’s testimony contains contradictions, impossible accounting, and murder-related inconsistencies, so it was too unreliable to support quantity findings | District court permissibly weighed credibility, limited its credibility finding to quantity, and corroborated Scott with other evidence | No clear error; district court could credit Scott for quantity and make reasonable estimates |
| Whether Alleyne prevents judicial fact-finding of drug quantity above the jury’s conviction amount | Alleyne requires jury-findings for facts that increase sentence exposure; court relied on judge-found facts to raise Guidelines quantity | Alleyne’s rule is narrow; it applies to facts increasing mandatory minima, not advisory Guideline quantity findings | Alleyne does not bar judicial fact-finding for advisory Guideline drug-quantity determinations |
| Whether court exceeded U.S.S.G. §1B1.3 by using conduct beyond amount of conviction | Because conviction was for <100 g, sentencing on >100 g conflicts with §1B1.3 limits | Relevant-conduct doctrine allows Guidelines to reflect drugs from same course of conduct/common scheme even if not charged/convicted | Court correctly applied relevant-conduct principles; Guideline quantity may exceed amount of conviction |
| Whether four-level leader/organizer enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(a) was plainly erroneous | Enhancement rested on unreliable testimony (again relying on Scott) and was not contested below | Multiple co-conspirators, plea statements, distribution of profits, use of threats, and decisionmaking showed Austin led an enterprise of 5+ participants | No plain error; ample evidence supported leader/organizer enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clark, 538 F.3d 803 (7th Cir.) (deference to sentencing court credibility findings and use of uncorroborated cooperator testimony)
- United States v. Longstreet, 669 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.) (burden and standard for proving drug quantity at sentencing)
- United States v. Acosta, 534 F.3d 574 (7th Cir.) (permitting reasonable quantity estimates based on record evidence)
- United States v. Sewell, 780 F.3d 839 (7th Cir.) (drug-quantity estimation not exact science; judge may make reasonable estimates)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (U.S.) (acquitted conduct may be considered at sentencing under preponderance standard)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 765 F.3d 732 (7th Cir.) (sentencing court may rely on preponderance of evidence for relevant conduct)
- United States v. Duarte, 950 F.2d 1255 (7th Cir.) (§1B1.3 and §3D1.2 allow increasing base level for relevant-conduct drugs beyond charged amount)
- United States v. Reynolds, 714 F.3d 1039 (7th Cir.) (factors to evaluate role-in-offense enhancements)