United States v. Lameisha Anderson
795 F.3d 613
6th Cir.2015Background
- Anderson was Shakir's girlfriend in a large Los Angeles drug conspiracy operating in multiple states (1992–1997).
- She pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 846) and conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)); she testified at Shakir's trial but the plea was later withdrawn as to substantial assistance.
- The district court applied a murder cross-reference under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1) based on actual knowledge of Duran's murder, and added a 3-level manager/supervisor enhancement under § 3B1.1(b).
- Sentencing occurred in 2014 after a long delay; presentence report (PSR) dated 2001 and updated in 2014 attributed 1.5 kg crack to the conspiracy and applied cross-reference to form a life-imprisonment range, though the statutory maximum for the drug conspiracy was 30 years.
- Anderson challenged the cross-reference and the manager enhancement; the district court overruled objections and sentenced her to 24 years on the drug charge and 20 years on the money-laundering charge.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, finding that the district court’s actual-knowledge finding was reasonable and that the manager enhancement was supported by the PSR facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the murder cross-reference based on actual knowledge or mere foreseeability? | Anderson argues no actual knowledge; argues § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) requires foreseeability only. | United States contends actual knowledge is shown by Anderson's participation and statements. | Cross-reference upheld; actual knowledge found or reasonably inferred. |
| Did Anderson share the requisite intent for Duran's murder to trigger the cross-reference? | Anderson did not knowingly participate in Duran's murder. | Government argues knowledge can be inferred from participation in the conspiracy. | Court affirmed cross-reference based on inferred knowledge. |
| Was the 3B1.1(b) manager/supervisor enhancement correctly applied? | Enhancement wasn't clearly warranted; PSR over-relied on broad statements. | Anderson supervised two juvenile couriers; this suffices for the enhancement. | Yes, § 3B1.1(b) enhancement supported; not error. |
| Did the district court err by relying on the PSR without explicit live findings? | No independent fact-finding; should have articulation at the hearing. | PSR findings plus evidence at sentencing were sufficient. | No error; the PSR evidence supported the findings. |
| Should the life-imprisonment range apply given 30-year statutory maximum? | Maximum constrained the sentence. | Cross-reference and enhancements yield life-imprisonment range, permissible notwithstanding the max. | Court affirmed within statutory framework; final sentence permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gates, 461 F.3d 703 (6th Cir. 2006) (guidelines factor-based enhancement considerations)
- United States v. Castilla-Lugo, 699 F.3d 454 (6th Cir. 2012) (agency/enhancement factors; manager/supervisor analysis)
- United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2008) (factors for § 3B1.1 enhancement)
- United States v. Clay, 579 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2009) (accomplice liability and cross-reference context)
- United States v. Thompson, 286 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2002) (scope of accomplice liability under § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B))