United States v. Kenneth Block
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2248
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Eight defendants pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and crack cocaine; district court calculated conspiracy quantity at 700 grams of heroin per week for sentencing.
- DTO operated from Rockford, Illinois, using caretakers (Block, Townsend, Cobb, Knox) to manage daily operations, procure raw heroin, dilute it, and supervise runners.
- Runners received packets of 25 baggies (each ~0.10 g heroin; $10 per bag) with $200 proceeds for the organization per jab.
- Peeples initially worked as a driver, later led runners; Daniels led the DTO, was arrested in 2009, and the DTO operated until September 2009.
- Daniels admitted to potentially stretching 100 g raw heroin into 700 g weekly supply; the court accepted testimony corroborating substantial distribution.
- Defendants challenged drug quantity, several argued equal or lower quantities; court applied firearms enhancement to several defendants based on co-conspirator possession; Peeples’s enhancement was later found unsupported and his sentence vacated on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 700 g/week quantity was clearly erroneous | Clay argues lower quantity; Ivancich corroborates larger figure | Defendants contend quantity overstated; evidence inconsistent | No clear error; district court reasonably estimated quantity from multiple sources |
| Whether the district court erred by considering state-court disparities | Clay asserts disparity in sentences vs. state runners | Disparities are permissible; federal guidelines do not force parity | No error; not required to compare with state sentences |
| Whether Cobb received a proper consideration of §3553(a) factors | Cobb argues lack of individualized consideration | Court thoroughly addressed arguments; no obligation to discuss every factor | Adequate consideration; within range, presumptively reasonable |
| Whether Peeples’s two-level firearms enhancement was supported | Evidence insufficient to show co-conspirator firearm possession was foreseeable | District court erred in relying on irrelevant or insufficient facts | Clear error; vacate Peeples’s sentence and remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2000) (review of findings of fact in sentencing standard of review)
- United States v. Morales, 655 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2011) (drug quantity determinations given deference; weight of consumable substance governs)
- United States v. Stewart, 361 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 2004) (artistic estimation allowed in quantity determinations)
- United States v. Jarrett, 133 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 1998) (drug quantity determinations are an art, not a science)
- United States v. Barnes, 602 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2010) (court may disregard plea-based stipulations when not supported by evidence)
- United States v. Luster, 480 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2008) (foreseeability for firearms enhancement by co-conspirators)
- United States v. Vold, 66 F.3d 920 (7th Cir. 1999) (foreseeability and firearms enhancement considerations in conspiracy)
- United States v. Berchiolly, 67 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 1995) (drug industry realities affecting foreseeability)
- United States v. Vaughn, 585 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2009) (guns as tools of the drug trade; foreseeability)
- United States v. Noe, 411 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2005) (conducted analysis of prior gun-possession evidence)