United States v. Kendrick Crawford
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22388
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Crawford pleaded guilty to distributing 38.3 grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) on an indictment charging six counts.
- The presentence report (PSR) attributed 408.1 grams of crack cocaine to Crawford for relevant conduct from 2003 through October 27, 2011, based on seven controlled purchases totaling 38.5 g and statements from at least three witnesses who bought 369.6 g.
- Reliance for quantity came from two informants, Veronica Ready and Melanie Latta, whose information was obtained through a non-testifying agent Chad Nesbitt during telephone interviews.
- At sentencing, Deputy Jeffrey Beck testified about Latta and Ready, including their reliability, prior verifications, and Latta’s controlled purchase with Crawford, plus a recovered pistol tied to Latta’s interview.
- The court found Latta’s and Ready’s information sufficiently reliable under hearsay-friendly standards, adopted a October 2005 start for relevant conduct, and attributed 321.9 grams to Crawford, yielding a base level with firearm enhancement and acceptance adjustments, resulting in a 135-month term.
- Crawford appeals, arguing procedural unreasonableness for reliance on unreliable hearsay and Sixth Amendment confrontation concerns; the Fourth Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple hearsay was reliable for quantity | Ready/Latta info sufficient reliability for quantity | Hearsay should be unreliable prior to corroboration | No error; district court did not clearly err in reliability |
| Whether use of hearsay violated confrontation rights at sentencing | Confrontation clause does not apply at sentencing | Separation of nexus between testimony and quantity may implicate confrontation | Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing; no violation |
| Whether telephone interviews undermine reliability for quantity | Telephone interviews can supply reliable quantity evidence | Telephone interviews are inherently unreliable | Telephone basis not per se unreliable; falls within admissible hearsay with indicia of reliability |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Uwaeme, 975 F.2d 1016 (4th Cir. 1992) (hearsay can support drug quantity for sentencing if reliable)
- United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431 (4th Cir. 2011) (when quantity is uncertain, sentence at the low end of the testifying witness's range)
- United States v. Wilkinson, 590 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2010) (sentencing information need not be trial-admissible if reliable for sentencing)
- United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review; reasonableness standard)
- United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 2011) (Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing)
- United States v. Sampson, 140 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1998) (guideline quantity approximation may rely on non-testifying information)
- United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 1999) (consideration of relevant conduct for sentencing)