United States v. Joshua Gadd
701 F. App'x 855
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- DEA investigation of an Atlanta “pill mill” run by Licata discovered recruiters who brought patients for illegitimate narcotics prescriptions; Gadd recruited at least ten patients and received commissions and occasional drug payments.
- Gadd was indicted for conspiracy to distribute oxycodone and morphine; arrested Aug. 7, 2014; four cell phones seized during a security sweep at his residence.
- Gadd pleaded guilty before the district court resolved his pretrial suppression motion and challenged guidelines calculations at sentencing.
- The PSR attributed 767.418 kg marijuana-equivalent to Gadd, applied a three-level managerial enhancement (§ 3B1.1(b)), and gave a two-level acceptance reduction, initially yielding a higher guideline range.
- At sentencing the court reduced quantity to ~640 kg equivalent (lowering base offense level), denied Gadd’s managerial-role objection and denied safety-valve relief as foreclosed by the managerial finding, then granted a small downward variance and imposed 66 months’ imprisonment (within the revised 63–78 month range).
Issues
| Issue | Gadd's Argument | Government/District Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Managerial/supervisory role (§ 3B1.1(b)) | Gadd claimed he was a low-level recruiter/addict who did not control or finance the clinic or regularly provide transportation, lodging, or payments | Gadd recruited multiple patients, received commissions and sometimes paid on behalf of recruits; recruitment is supervisory for § 3B1.1 | Enhancement affirmed — recruitment of participants supports three-level increase (no clear error) |
| Safety-valve reduction (§ 2D1.1(b)(17) / § 5C1.2) | Gadd argued he was a minor player, had no criminal history, and gave truthful information so should get two-level reduction | Safety-valve is unavailable to anyone who is an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor; managerial finding precludes relief | Denied — safety-valve inapplicable because managerial role established |
| Quantity attribution / base offense level | Gadd contested the government’s quantity calculation as relying on unreliable hearsay and excessive labeling assumptions | Court reviewed arguments and evidence at sentencing and adopted a reduced quantity (~640 kg equiv.) | Court reduced base level accordingly (from level 28 to 26) after hearing arguments |
| Substantive reasonableness of 66-month sentence | Gadd requested a larger downward variance based on addiction, family hardships, rehabilitation, and codefendant disparity (56 months) | Court weighed § 3553(a) factors, stressing seriousness of recruitment conduct and deterrence; considered but declined to mirror codefendant’s sentence | Affirmed — sentence within guidelines and not an abuse of discretion; not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bergman, 852 F.3d 1046 (11th Cir. 2017) (recruiter can be a manager or supervisor under § 3B1.1)
- United States v. Sosa, 777 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2015) (role-in-offense analysis under § 3B1.1)
- United States v. Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2004) (recruitment of co-conspirators supports managerial enhancement)
- United States v. Cruz, 106 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1997) (defendant bears burden to prove safety-valve criteria)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (two-step reasonableness review under § 3553(a))
- United States v. McPhee, 336 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2003) (clear-error standard for factual findings at sentencing)