United States v. Jeffrey Weaver
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11116
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Weaver sold methamphetamine on credit to Wilkey and Dale, who fronted the drugs to their customers.
- Weaver pled guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute methamphetamine; district court sentenced him to 235 months within the bottom of the guidelines range.
- The district court applied a 3-level upward adjustment under § 3B1.1(b) for manager or supervisor rather than the 4-level organizer/leader adjustment.
- Probation notes described Weaver as controlling quantities and timing, pressuring sales, and instructing prompt turnover, though not controlling price or recruitment.
- A detective testified Weaver assisted by initiating supply decisions and timing but did not demonstrate direct control over price, customers, or recruiting; the court still found a level of control sufficient for § 3B1.1(b).
- The court vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing, concluding Weaver lacked sufficient evidence to be a manager or supervisor and that the basis for the enhancement was misapplied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weaver is a manager or supervisor under § 3B1.1(b) | Government contends Weaver exercised decision-making authority and control over Wilkey and Dale. | Weaver did not control or supervise others; he merely fronted drugs and sought prompt repayment. | No; Weaver did not meet the manager/supervisor standard; vacate and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Figueroa, 682 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2012) (factors distinguish organizers/leaders from managers/supervisors; note ongoing supervision required)
- United States v. Bennett, 708 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2013) (slavish adherence to Note 4 factors unnecessary; ultimate question is defendant's relative role)
- United States v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2012) (manager/supervisor defect requires straightforward understanding of role)
- United States v. Mendoza, 576 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2009) (relative culpability central to 3B1.1 framework)
- United States v. Mustread, 42 F.3d 1097 (7th Cir. 1994) (factors used to distinguish levels; not exclusive standard)
- United States v. Vargas, 16 F.3d 155 (7th Cir. 1994) (control and coercion indicators; independent suppliers may undermine control)
- Graham v. United States, 162 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (three-tiered framework for conspiracies; rely on organizational chart)