United States v. McKenzie, 2011 WL 3849643

McKenzie and Barber were charged in a multi-count indictment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and for possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug crime; they pled guilty to the respective counts.
An undercover sting involved planned armed robbery of a drug stash house; agent advised that stash houses typically hold large cocaine quantities, including about twenty kilograms.
Upon sentencing, the PSR assigned base offense level 34 for the drugs; Barber had a 3-point deduction for acceptance of responsibility and McKenzie faced a 2-point increase for obstruction.
The district court found the cocaine quantity at issue to be at least twenty kilograms, yielding a base level of 34, and sentenced Barber to 120 months and McKenzie to 200 months.
On appeal, defendants challenge the quantity finding as clearly erroneous and argue for an alternative quantity standard; the Seventh Circuit affirms, applying the reasonably foreseeable standard.
The court noted the government’s role in establishing the scale but affirmed that both defendants understood the plan contemplated a large quantity of drugs and weapons.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the drug quantity attributed to each defendant properly grounded in reasonably foreseeable scope of conspiracy?	McKenzie/Barber contend quantity must be agreed or precisely foreseen.	McKenzie/Barber argue lack of precise amount should not bind them.	Yes; quantity reasonably foreseeable suffices under Cochran.
Did the district court properly apply the guidelines and articulate the standard for drug quantity?	Court failed to articulate the standard.	Court implicitly applied reasonable foreseeability.	Yes; court explicitly referred to reasonable foreseeability.
Was the sentence within the properly calculated guidelines ranges?	PSR overestimated quantity.	Sentences remained within ranges even after adjustments.	Yes; Barber and McKenzie sentences fell within corresponding ranges.
What is the proper standard of review for quantity determinations in conspiracies?	Standard should be de novo review of factual quantity.	Standard is clearly erroneous for factual findings.	Factual findings reviewed for clear error; law de novo.

United States v. Melendez, 467 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2006) (guidelines quantity review and standard of proof in conspiracy cases)
United States v. Cochran, 955 F.2d 1116 (7th Cir. 1992) (defendant responsible for reasonably foreseeable amount in conspiracy)