United States v. Owusu Firempong
542 F. App'x 484
6th Cir.2013Background
- Logan pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute/possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and appeals his sentence.
- McRae and Firempong were convicted of cocaine conspiracy; Firempong was also convicted of conspiracy to launder money.
- Logan alleged the government breached the plea agreement by opposing acceptance of responsibility while simultaneously seeking an obstruction of justice enhancement.
- The district court sentenced Logan, finding an obstruction of justice enhancement and denying the acceptance of responsibility reduction; Logan challenged on appeal.
- McRae and Firempong challenged venue, alleging improper forum and race-based forum shopping; the panel rejected these challenges.
- Firempong challenged various issues including admission of evidence, sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy, drug quantity and forfeiture calculations, and substantive reasonableness of his sentence; the court rejected these challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plea-breach plain-error impact | Logan argues government breached plea and affected substantial rights. | Logan asserts breach warrants resentencing due to loss of agreed neutrality. | Breach found but no resentencing required |
| Effect of plea-breach on appealwaiver | Logan contends breach nullifies appellate waiver. | Government breach permits appeal notwithstanding waiver. | Waiver not enforced; but no plain-error impact on outcome |
| Venue propriety for Firempong | Firempong argues improper venue in Michigan due to California actions. | Firempong contends venue misalignment and race-based forum shopping. | Venue proper; forfeiture and race-based claims rejected |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Firempong conspiracy | Herman's testimony alone could be sufficient to prove conspiracy. | No corroborating witnesses; insufficiency of total evidence. | Evidence sufficient; conviction sustained |
| Forfeiture quantity and foreseeability | Firempong challenges drug quantity and forfeiture amount calculation. | Arguments that district court erred in quantity/forfeiture calculation and scope. | Findings upheld; foreseeability and gross-proceeds approach approved |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Keller, 665 F.3d 711 (6th Cir. 2011) (waiver of appellate rights under plea agreement assessed de novo)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain-error review applied to forfeited plea breaches)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (four-pronged test for plain error)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2004) (plain-error review criteria applied to plea breaches)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1999) (venue may lie where overt acts occur in conspiracy)
- United States v. Williams, 274 F.3d 1079 (6th Cir. 2001) (distinguishes informant-related venue issues)
- Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2005) (venue proper where overt act occurred for money laundering conspiracy)
- Angel v. United States, 355 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2004) (extraordinary acceptance of responsibility when obstruction present)
- United States v. Miller, 48 F. App’x 933 (6th Cir. 2002) (government neutrality on acceptance of responsibility context)
- United States v. Helman, 377 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 2011) (forfeiture principles—gross proceeds vs net profits)