United States v. Joseph Swafford
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8642
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Swafford was convicted at trial of nineteen counts of distributing iodine (a listed chemical) to methamphetamine cooks.
- The government argued the cross reference in § 2D1.11(c)(1) applied because the conduct involved unlawfully manufacturing methamphetamine.
- On remand, the district court imposed a 360-month sentence after applying the cross reference and § 1B1.3(a)(1) relevant conduct.
- Swafford objected that he did not complete manufacturing and that the cross reference should not apply to him.
- The court found the conduct was part of a jointly undertaken criminal activity and reasonably foreseeable to others, supporting accountability under § 1B1.3.
- The panel held the sentence within the statutory maximum and affirmed the cross-reference application and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2D1.11(c) cross-reference applied via § 1B1.3 is proper | Swafford contends he did not complete manufacturing; cross-reference should not apply. | Swafford is responsible for others' omissions under § 1B1.3; cross-reference applicable. | Cross-reference properly applied via relevant conduct. |
| Can the district court apply the cross-reference if the jury did not convict on manufacturing | Cross-reference would penalize without a manufacturing conviction. | Guidelines allow relevant conduct-based cross-references even without conspiratorial findings. | Yes; within-guidelines framework permits it. |
| Reasonableness under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) for a within-guidelines sentence | Sentence disparity concerns render the sentence unreasonable. | Within-guidelines sentence is consistent with goals of federal sentencing; disparities minimized by guidelines. | No reversible error; sentence reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc on relevant-conduct framework for cross references)
- United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2008) (stacking sentences within statutory maximum permissible)
- United States v. Voss, 956 F.2d 1007 (10th Cir. 1992) (listed-chemical offenses and cross-reference prior treatment)
- United States v. Kingston, 922 F.2d 1234 (6th Cir. 1990) (prior circuit stance on cross references and culpability)
- United States v. Leed, 981 F.2d 202 (5th Cir. 1993) (analysis of cross-reference and relevant conduct)
- United States v. Hyde, 977 F.2d 1436 (11th Cir. 1992) (contextual treatment of cross-reference in listed-chemical cases)
- United States v. Cook, 938 F.2d 149 (9th Cir. 1991) (cross-reference considerations in listed-chemical offenses)
- United States v. Shrake, 515 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2008) (within-guidelines sentencing and disparity considerations)
- United States v. Smith, 549 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2008) (guidelines interpretation and cross-reference application)