United States v. John May
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6453
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- John May and his cousin Valdemere Collier sold crack cocaine to an FBI informant on three occasions (Dec 2008–Mar 2009).
- May arranged transactions: negotiated price and quantity with the informant, directed Collier to deliver samples and handle pickups, and obtained the cocaine supply.
- During sales May stayed apart while Collier completed transactions; Collier turned proceeds over to May, who kept a larger share.
- May pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine; parties disputed whether May warranted a two‑level aggravating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 and whether he qualified for safety‑valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
- The district court applied the § 3B1.1 two‑level adjustment (finding May supervised Collier) and denied safety‑valve relief, subjecting May to the ten‑year statutory minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (May) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3B1.1 two‑level adjustment for organizer/leader/manager/supervisor was warranted | May: he and Collier were equal partners/collaborators, not a supervisor | Gov’t: May negotiated terms, supplied drugs, directed Collier, and kept larger share — he supervised Collier | Court: Affirmed § 3B1.1 adjustment; facts support supervisory role |
| Whether supervision of a single person precludes safety‑valve eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(4) | May: “others” is plural; supervising only one person should not bar safety‑valve relief | Gov’t: statutory language and guidelines treat singular/plural interchangeably; § 3B1.1 commentary covers supervising “one or more” participants | Court: Denied safety‑valve; supervision of even one person disqualifies under § 3553(f)(4) when § 3B1.1 applies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Doe, 613 F.3d 681 (7th Cir.) (deferential review where multiple inferences possible)
- United States v. Hatten‑Lubick, 525 F.3d 575 (7th Cir.) (choice between permissible inferences is not clearly erroneous)
- United States v. Vaughn, 722 F.3d 918 (7th Cir.) (§ 3B1.1 support where defendant directed co‑conspirator and received proceeds)
- United States v. Figueroa, 682 F.3d 694 (7th Cir.) (supervisory role shown where defendant paid and directed co‑conspirator)
- Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1993) (statutory definitions may be displaced by context)
- United States v. Holcomb, 657 F.3d 445 (7th Cir.) (use of § 1 canon but context can dictate singular/plural meaning)
- United States v. Gonzalez‑Mendoza, 584 F.3d 726 (7th Cir.) (supervision of one co‑participant can justify § 3B1.1 and preclude safety‑valve relief)