United States v. Marty Stacy
769 F.3d 969
7th Cir.2014Background
- In May 2012 Stacy was arrested as a passenger in a truck; police found a glass meth pipe and pharmacy logs showed repeated pseudoephedrine purchases by Stacy and associates. He was charged with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and four counts of possession of pseudoephedrine knowing it would be used to make methamphetamine.
- The government notified it would offer Rule 404(b) evidence of a March 2008 incident in which Stacy was found with a bag of methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine in a vehicle; Stacy objected as unduly prejudicial and not sufficiently tied to intent to manufacture.
- At trial multiple witnesses testified that they bought pseudoephedrine pills ("smurfing") for Stacy to make methamphetamine; police and forensic testimony supported links to scales, residue, and the pipe; the government later introduced the 2008 possession evidence without the district court performing a detailed Rule 404(b) analysis but gave a limiting instruction.
- The jury convicted Stacy on all counts and found the conspiracy involved over 50 grams of methamphetamine; probation attributed 326.98 grams of pseudoephedrine to Stacy and recommended guideline enhancements, including a two-level increase for use of a minor.
- The district court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 336 months, rejecting mitigation arguments including Stacy’s age; Stacy appealed, challenging (1) admission of the 2008 meth possession under Rule 404(b) and (2) the sentence as unreasonably harsh because of the Sentencing Commission’s pseudoephedrine-to-meth conversion ratios.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b) | Stacy: 2008 possession was unduly prejudicial and not probative of intent to manufacture in 2012 | Government: 2008 possession (including pseudoephedrine) proves intent, knowledge, absence of mistake | Court: Admission was error under Gomez approach (propensity inference), but error was harmless given strong independent proof of intent |
| Adequacy of district court's Rule 403/404(b) analysis | Stacy: court failed to assess permissible non-propensity purpose and do Rule 403 balancing | Government: limiting instruction sufficed and evidence relevant to intent | Court: District court should have required a chain of reasoning and explicit Rule 403 balancing; boilerplate limiting instruction insufficient, but error harmless |
| Sentencing challenge to pseudoephedrine-to-meth conversion ratio | Stacy: Guidelines' 50% yield ratio overstates produced meth and causes unfairly harsher treatment of pseudoephedrine procurement | Government: Stacy forfeited specific policy challenge by not raising it below; Commission and DEA support ratio | Held: Reviewed for plain error; no plain error or unreasonable sentence—district court reasonably applied guidelines and explained §3553(a) factors |
| Standard of appellate review for sentencing policy challenge | Stacy: substantive-reasonableness review (abuse of discretion) | Government: plain-error review because no district-court objection | Held: Plain-error review applies; precedent requires it when policy objections not raised below |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (adopted a rules-based approach to Rule 404(b), requiring a propensity-free chain of reasoning and Rule 403 balancing)
- United States v. Zapata, 871 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1989) (earlier four-part 404(b) test)
- United States v. Miller, 673 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2012) (warning against reliance on propensity in 404(b) justifications)
- United States v. Chapman, 765 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2014) (admission of prior drug conviction to prove intent was error)
- United States v. Lee, 724 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2013) (similar prohibition on propensity-based use of prior-act evidence)
- United States v. Moore, 641 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2011) (district courts must articulate reasoning when admitting other-act evidence)
- United States v. Vargas, 689 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2012) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary mistakes)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (plain-error standard for unpreserved appellate claims)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (district courts may vary from Guidelines based on policy disagreements)
- United States v. Martin, 438 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2006) (discussing DEA basis for pseudoephedrine-to-meth conversion ratios)