United States v. Johnson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13130
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Johnson and eight others indicted for crack cocaine and heroin distribution (2002–2005).
- Johnson convicted on Counts Eleven and Twelve; conspiracy (Count One) vacated on appeal.
- Jury fixed Johnson responsible for 5–50 grams of crack; remanded after Count One vacatur.
- At resentencing, district court used 23 grams of crack for Johnson’s sentence; below-guideline result.
- Johnson argued for 1:1 crack-to-powder ratio and for reduction based on policy grounds; court did not explicitly respond to ratio request.
- This appeal challenges district court’s handling of the ratio and its relevant-conduct finding, leading to remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court adequately addressed Johnson's 1:1 ratio request. | Johnson argues district court failed to respond to principal ratio argument. | Johnson asserts need for reduced ratio under policy grounds (Spears, Kimbrough). | Remanded for explicit consideration of ratio; no categorical prohibition. |
| Whether the district court’s relevant conduct finding and drug quantity were properly supported. | Johnson contends the 23 grams and code word mappings lack reliability and relation to offense. | The government relied on intercepted calls and testimony; evidence sufficient to sustain 23 grams. | Affirmed relevant-conduct finding; error was harmless for matters related to July 1–2 calls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arberry, 612 F.3d 898 (7th Cir.2010) (government failure to respond to principal argument requires remand)
- Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (U.S. 2009) (district courts may reject and vary guidelines on policy grounds)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (policy-based departures permissible)
- Poetz, 582 F.3d 835 (7th Cir.2009) (context where implicit considerations supported below-guideline sentence)
- Carrillo-Esparza, 590 F.3d 538 (7th Cir.2010) (implicit consideration of arguments may be inferred from record)
- Winbush, 580 F.3d 503 (7th Cir.2009) (explicit relation of unconvicted conduct to offense must be shown)
- Arroyo, 406 F.3d 881 (7th Cir.2005) (require explicit relation findings for aggregated relevant conduct)
- White, 519 F.3d 342 (7th Cir.2008) (relevant conduct standard and preponderance burden)
- Acosta, 85 F.3d 275 (7th Cir.1996) (guidelines related to relevant conduct)