United States v. Parnell Gulley
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12147
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Gulley, Blake’s driver, helped facilitate crack cocaine transactions; Heard, a CI, arranged a controlled buy with Blake and recorded it with video and audio; Gulley appears in the October 21, 2008 deal, delivering a bag of cocaine to Heard for $200.
- Two days later, on October 23, Gulley drove Blake to a larger 63-gram deal; Heard recorded that transaction which involved Blake delivering crack cocaine to Heard.
- Blake and Gulley were later arrested; a stash house was searched on October 31, revealing crack cocaine, ecstasy, firearm, and cash; Gulley faced charges for distributing crack cocaine.
- Gulley cooperated initially under a direct use immunity agreement but later withdrew cooperation; the government argued Gulley’s statements on 404(b) grounds were admissible to prove knowledge and involvement.
- At trial, the defense objected to exhibits beyond October 21, 2008; the district court admitted 404(b) evidence, and Gulley was convicted after a mistrial and a second trial.
- Gulley was sentenced in 2011 to 327 months’ imprisonment plus 8 years of supervised release; pre-FSA precedent governed the calculation, later challenged after Dorsey v. United States clarified FSA retroactivity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) evidence was properly admitted | Gulley argues 404(b) evidence about other acts was improper and prejudicial. | Gulley contends the district court failed to preserve the objection with specific grounds and the evidence should have been excluded. | Admissible under 404(b) exceptions; preservation insufficient but plain error not shown; evidence properly admitted. |
| Whether failure to apply the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) at sentencing was harmless error | Gulley asserts FSA should reduce the Guidelines range and sentencing terms; error prejudiced him. | Gulley contends the district court’s cure or variance could not be assumed harmless; FSA applied by Dorsey and required resentencing. | Vacate and remand for resentencing with correct Guidelines range under the FSA. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hicks, 635 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard for Rule 404(b) analysis)
- United States v. Conner, 583 F.3d 1011 (7th Cir. 2009) (door-opening doctrine permits rebuttal when no defense on an element)
- United States v. Villegas, 655 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2011) (door-opening and Rule 404(b) analysis considerations)
- United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2008) (flexible approach to similarity in 404(b) analysis)
- United States v. Howard, 692 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2012) (reliability of eyewitness testimony and admissibility considerations)
- United States v. Ramirez, 45 F.3d 1096 (7th Cir. 1995) (weapons as tools of the narcotics trade supporting admissibility)
- United States v. Miller, 688 F.3d 322 (7th Cir. 2012) (probative value vs. prejudice in Rule 404(b) balancing)
- United States v. Earls, 704 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 2012) (probative value of 404(b) evidence in context of trial)
- United States v. Gomez, 712 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir. 2013) (extent of probative value and similarity in 404(b) analysis)
- United States v. Long, 86 F.3d 81 (7th Cir. 1996) (detailed approach to evaluating relevance of prior acts)