United States v. McDonald
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18943
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- McDonald, a Maine resident, was arrested after a traffic stop; officers found 26.4 g of heroin (he swallowed a bag at a hospital), a safe, a loaded 9mm handgun, scales, packaging materials, and other drug paraphernalia.
- A confidential informant (CI) told the government and testified before a grand jury that she accompanied McDonald on repeated trips to Worcester, MA to buy heroin and helped him sell heroin in Maine between Feb–Apr 2013. No law-enforcement witness saw those sales.
- McDonald pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
- At sentencing the PSR attributed additional drug quantity based on the CI’s statements; the district court conservatively credited the CI and held McDonald responsible for 40–60 g of heroin (base offense level 20), applied a two-level obstruction enhancement for the swallowing/attempted concealment, and sentenced him to 75 months concurrent on both counts.
- McDonald appealed challenging (1) denial of his suppression motion, (2) attribution of additional drug quantity based on the CI (relevant conduct and reliability), and (3) the obstruction-of-justice enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable-suspicion stop | Officers lacked reasonable suspicion because slow driving/braking were lawful and innocuous | Officers had sufficient corroborating facts (burglary link, pawning reports, car match, furtive driving) to justify stop | Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; suppression denial affirmed |
| Attribution of drug quantity as relevant conduct | CI-based transactions are not relevant conduct; raised for first time on appeal | CI’s grand jury testimony and proffer described repeated resupply/sales forming the same course of conduct | No plain error: district court reasonably found transactions part of same course of conduct; amounts attributed upheld |
| Reliability of CI testimony for sentencing quantities | CI was unreliable (inconsistencies; motive to lie) so quantities should be limited to seized 26.4 g | CI corroborated by independent evidence (safe, gun, jail calls, cash, prior convictions, economic evidence); court reduced quantity to account for memory uncertainty | Court did not clearly err; corroboration and conservative calculation made CI testimony sufficiently reliable |
| Obstruction-of-justice enhancement | McDonald was impaired and acted without willfulness; conduct did not materially hinder investigation | He concealed drugs for two hours post-arrest and attempted to swallow them when dropped, showing deliberate effort to hide evidence | Enhancement affirmed: conduct was deliberate (not contemporaneous with arrest), Application Note 4(D) inapplicable, no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arnott, 758 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing suppression factual findings)
- United States v. Dapolito, 713 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 2013) (reasonable suspicion and totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (innocent factors can combine to create reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Wood, 924 F.2d 399 (1st Cir. 1991) (deference to sentencing court on relevant-conduct drug-quantity findings)
- United States v. Blanco, 888 F.2d 907 (1st Cir. 1989) (relevant conduct may include uncharged drug quantities if same course of conduct)
- United States v. Huddleston, 194 F.3d 214 (1st Cir. 1999) (preponderance standard for sentencing-related factfinding)
- United States v. Quirion, 714 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2013) (obstruction enhancement: district court may rely on any evidence it reasonably deems reliable)