United States v. Malcolm Redmon
702 F. App'x 472
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Malcolm D. Redmon pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ≥28 grams crack and unspecified powder cocaine; sentenced to 292 months (below the top of Guidelines range).
- PSR attributed 4 kg cocaine equivalent to Redmon (3 kg powder, 1 kg crack) based on coconspirator admissions, intercepted calls/texts, surveillance, controlled buys, and seized quantities; base offense level 32, total offense level 35 with a Category VI criminal history.
- PSR recommended a 4-level § 3B1.1 organizer/leader enhancement and a 2-level § 3C1.1 obstruction-of-justice enhancement; Redmon objected to drug quantity/type and both adjustments.
- At sentencing ATF agents and a task force officer summarized corroborating evidence (proffers, admissions, interceptions, buys, surveillance); court found government proved quantity and type by preponderance and applied both enhancements, then considered § 3553(a) factors and imposed 292 months.
- Redmon appealed challenging (1) drug-quantity/type finding, (2) organizer/leader role enhancement, (3) obstruction enhancement, and (4) alleged failure to account for crack/powder sentencing disparity; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Redmon) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drug quantity/type attribution | PSR overstates quantity; coconspirator statements unreliable; court erred in finding 3 kg powder/1 kg crack | Government relied on proffers, interceptions, surveillance, buys and seizures to approximate quantity/type | Affirmed: district court’s 4 kg finding and 1 kg crack attribution not clearly erroneous; sufficient indicia of reliability and preponderance met |
| § 3B1.1 organizer/leader adjustment | Redmon only "worked with" others; no evidence he directed others; cooperator statements self-serving | Government showed directives, recruitment, control (directing distributors, fronting drugs, assault, ordering false testimony) | Affirmed: facts supported leadership role; enhancement proper under broad § 3B1.1 standards |
| § 3C1.1 obstruction adjustment | Conduct did not meet willful obstruction standard (implied) | Government showed monitored calls directing false grand jury testimony, posts identifying witnesses, jail-cell notes; substantial steps to intimidate witnesses | Affirmed: obstruction adjustment properly applied based on attempt/intimidation evidence |
| Consideration of crack/powder disparity under § 3553(a) | District court failed to sufficiently account for sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine | Court considered § 3553(a) and criminal history; disparity is a discretionary ground for variance | Affirmed: record shows court recognized its discretion; contention rejected without further elaboration |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mannings, 850 F.3d 404 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for Guidelines application and reasonableness)
- United States v. Yellow Horse, 774 F.3d 493 (8th Cir. 2014) (approximating drug quantity when seizures do not reflect offense scale)
- United States v. Whitehead, 487 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2007) (drug-type proof may be circumstantial)
- United States v. Moralez, 808 F.3d 362 (8th Cir. 2015) (hearsay with indicia of reliability may support sentencing findings)
- United States v. Allen, 440 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate standard: reverse only if record definitely and firmly convinces error)
- United States v. Molina-Perez, 595 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2010) (broad interpretation of organizer/leader under § 3B1.1)
- United States v. Irlmeier, 750 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2014) (mere distribution not sufficient for role enhancement)
- United States v. Mohamed, 757 F.3d 757 (8th Cir. 2014) (review standards for obstruction adjustments)
- United States v. McMannus, 496 F.3d 846 (8th Cir. 2007) (giving instructions to coconspirator to conceal involvement supports obstruction adjustment)
- United States v. Vaca, 289 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2002) (attempts to intimidate or threaten witnesses sustain obstruction adjustment)
- United States v. Smith, 665 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2011) (attempt requires intent and substantial step corroborating criminal intent)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (discussed in context of precedential treatment; not outcome-determinative here)