United States v. Pamela Miller
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21389
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Four consolidated appeals from eastern Tennessee meth conspiracy cases involving 49 defendants; Miller pled guilty and challenges her sentence; Beals and Ambrose went to trial with Beals challenging convictions and Ambrose challenging several aspects; government cross-appeals Ambrose’s sentence after Abbott v. United States (2010).
- Miller’s plea agreement included a broad waiver of direct appeal of her conviction or sentence unless a sentence exceeded the guideline range; Miller argued waiver did not bar misapplication challenges or that the government breached the plea.
- Beals challenged the conspiracy convictions as a variance (one conspiracy vs multiple) and challenged possession of equipment; Beals also appealed on sufficiency grounds.
- Ambrose challenged suppression of evidence from a state search warrant execution, suppression issues tied to warrant validity and informant identity, and the sufficiency of the firearm conviction; the government cross-appealed regarding Abbott’s impact on his 924(c) sentence.
- The court dismissed Miller’s appeal as waived, affirmed Beals’s convictions, vacated Ambrose’s sentence, and remanded Ambrose for further factfinding and resentencing consistent with Abbott.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver scope and Miller’s challenge | Miller argues waiver did not cover misapplication of guidelines or breach. | Miller argues waiver is too broad or breached; Beals cites McCoy distinctions. | Waiver precludes Miller’s challenge; no breach found. |
| Conspiracy framing in Beals case | Beals contends evidence shows multiple conspiracies, not one. | Government argues evidence supports a single conspiracy. | Evidence supports a single conspiracy; no reversible variance. |
| Ambrose suppression and informant identity | Ambrose challenges warrant scope, false statement, and non-disclosure of informant. | Government contends Fourth Amendment controls; informant identity not essential. | Suppression denied on appeals; remand for unresolved entry/search issues; informant non-disclosure not required to be revealed. |
| Abbott impact on Ambrose’s sentence | Abbott requires consecutive minimum under 924(c) with potential ex post facto concerns. | Abbott forecloses such concerns; current sentence unlawful. | Ambrose’s sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with Abbott. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (probable-cause challenge to affidavit can proceed if rest of evidence supports probable cause)
- Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (S. Ct. 2010) (set highest mandatory minimum for 924(c) unless higher provision applies)
- United States v. Walls, 293 F.3d 959 (6th Cir. 2002) (each conspirator’s knowledge and participation sufficient for conspiracy)
- United States v. Swafford, 512 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 2008) (variance in conspiracy cases and factual sufficiency review)
- Warner v. United States, 690 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1982) (definition of single conspiracy and overlap among participants)
- United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2006) (single conspiracy with overlapping participants)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) (description of particularity in warrants)
- Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345 (1972) (neutral and detached magistrate requirement)
- Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable-cause framework for warrants)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (informant disclosure balancing test)
- Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979) (warrants must be neutral and detached)