United States v. Montreece Kindle, 698 F.3d 401

Four defendants (Mayfield, White, Ward, Kindle) were convicted on four counts each: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine, attempted possession with intent to distribute five or more kilograms, possession of firearms during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction.
ATF conducted an undercover sting with confidential informant Potts and undercover Agent Gomez; the scheme involved robbing a fictitious stash house with large cocaine quantities.
Meetings occurred on July 23 and August 9, 2009, where participants discussed plan specifics, guards, weapons, and post-robbery drug division; parties anticipated a stash-house robbery.
On August 10, 2009, the crew assembled in a brown van for the alleged robbery; they were surveilled by agents and subsequent arrests followed; weapons, masks, and related materials were recovered.
Kindle waived Miranda rights and implicated others in a post-arrest statement; all defendants proceeded to trial and were convicted on the four counts.
On appeal, Mayfield challenged entrapment defenses and sentence; Ward’s counsel filed an Anders brief and Ward’s appeal was ultimately dismissed; the majority affirmed the convictions and Mayfield’s sentence, with a separate concurrence addressing entrapment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Count One	Government presented substantial evidence of agreement to rob and intent to distribute.	No evidence of intent to distribute from stash-house plan.	Evidence sufficient; rational jury could find intent to distribute.
Sufficiency of evidence for Count Two	Actions and meetings constituted a substantial step toward possession with intent to distribute.	Steps were insufficient or not clearly tied to an attempted possession.	Evidence showed substantial steps; conviction affirmed.
Mayfield entrapment defense preclusion	Government did not entrap Mayfield; prior persuasion did not require entrapment instruction.	Mayfield was entrapped; entrapment defense should have been allowed.	District court properly barred entrapment defense; no entrapment instruction required.
Mayfield sentence—base level and obstruction enhancement	Base level 34 supported by 15+ kg conspiracy quantity; obstruction enhancement warranted by perjury.	Disputed quantity; challenged perjury finding and reasoning for enhancement.	Base level of 34 upheld; two-level obstruction enhancement affirmed.

United States v. Spagnola, 632 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2011) (elements of conspiracy; existence of agreement, knowledge, intent)
United States v. Dennis, 115 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 1997) (sufficient substantial step for attempt)
United States v. Barnes, 230 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 2000) (definition of substantial step; context-specific review)
United States v. Magana, 118 F.3d 1173 (7th Cir. 1997) (planning evidence as substantial step for attempt)
United States v. Blassingame, 197 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 1999) (predisposition factors in entrapment analysis)
United States v. Pillado, 656 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2011) (entrapment considerations; inducement context)
United States v. Hall, 608 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 2010) (pretrial entrapment rulings and framework)
United States v. Johnson, 612 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2010) (perjury and obstruction of justice standards)
United States v. White, 240 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2001) (requirement for explanatory findings on perjury/obstruction)
United States v. Duff, 76 F.3d 122 (7th Cir. 1996) (conspiracy with informant limitations)