United States v. Joe Head
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6492
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2009–2011 Glenn Kamper, Joe Head, and Jonathan St. Onge conspired to manufacture and distribute MDMA; Head handled manufacture, Kamper financed/organized, St. Onge handled distribution.
- Law enforcement seized ~447.5 grams of MDMA and other evidence; Kamper pleaded guilty, Head was convicted at trial. Both were held responsible for 1,218.75 g MDMA (converted in the Guidelines to 609.375 kg marijuana).
- Kamper challenged the Guidelines’ MDMA-to-marijuana equivalency ratio as scientifically unsound and moved the district court to adopt a different ratio or vary downward; the district court declined, citing institutional concerns and separation-of-powers reasoning.
- At sentencing the district court applied enhancements: Kamper received a §3B1.1 leadership enhancement and a §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement (for telling jailmates St. Onge was a informant) and was denied acceptance credit, and was sentenced to 144 months.
- Head’s PSR recommended enhancements including obstruction (§3C1.1) for alleged perjury and §3B1.1(b) managerial-role enhancement; the district court applied the obstruction and managerial enhancements (but rejected a weapons enhancement) and sentenced Head to 144 months.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit considered (a) whether district courts may reject and replace a Guidelines drug-equivalency ratio for policy reasons, (b) the validity of the obstruction enhancements and role enhancements applied to each defendant, and (c) procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may reject and replace the Guidelines MDMA-to-marijuana ratio based on policy disagreement | Kamper: ratio is scientifically flawed; district court may reject and adopt a different ratio or vary downward under Kimbrough | Government/district court: court lacks authority or institutional competence to replace Commission’s ratio; should defer | Court: District courts do have reject-and-replace authority per Kimbrough/Spears; district court here misunderstood that authority but the error was harmless because it would have imposed the same sentence anyway |
| Whether Kamper’s conduct in jail warranted a §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement and denial of acceptance credit | Kamper: telling others St. Onge was a snitch was not intended as intimidation; he lacked intent and accepted responsibility | Government: statements reasonably construed as indirect threats; jeopardized cooperating witness; shows lack of acceptance | Held: Enhancement and denial of acceptance credit affirmed — facts support reasonable construction as indirect threat and district court’s credibility/intent findings were not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Kamper and Head should have received aggravating-role (§3B1.1) enhancements | Kamper/Head: roles were roughly coequal; no superior managerial control over others justifying enhancement | Government: Kamper organized/funded and Head managed manufacture; conspirators had different roles and some supervised tasks | Held: For Kamper, the §3B1.1(a) enhancement was upheld. For Head, the §3B1.1(b) enhancement was improperly applied because the court failed to find he supervised others (misapplied legal standard) — error |
| Whether Head’s §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement (perjury) was supported | Head: he denied knowledge at trial; right to testify; prosecution didn’t support perjury elements | Government: Head’s testimony that he had "no idea" of the process was false; thus perjury and obstruction | Held: Vacated — court identified the contested testimony and found it false but failed to make the necessary findings as to materiality and willful intent to provide false testimony; enhancement unsupported; remand required for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district courts may vary from Guidelines based on policy disagreement, including rejecting a Guidelines sentencing ratio)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory post-Booker)
- Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (2009) (recognizes district courts’ authority to reject and replace Guidelines ratios due to policy disagreement)
- Dunnigan v. United States, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (testimony that is perjury can support sentencing consequences but safeguards required to protect defendant’s right to testify)
- Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001) (deferential review may apply to fact-bound sentencing determinations)
- United States v. Macias-Farias, 706 F.3d 775 (6th Cir.) (court cannot supply omitted perjury findings on appeal; district court must make specific findings to apply §3C1.1)