United States v. Paulette
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9461
7th Cir.2017Background
- Ayiko Paulette helped lead the Waverly Crips and trafficked large quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine ("ice"), and heroin in East St. Louis and nearby areas.
- Indictment charged a conspiracy from January 2007 to July 2014 alleging at least 5 kg of cocaine and 50 g of methamphetamine; Paulette pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count but declined to admit detailed facts at colloquy.
- Paulette’s plea agreement expressly admitted the conspiracy “involved” at least 5 kg of cocaine and at least 50 g of actual methamphetamine.
- The probation officer’s presentence report attributed multiple 2011–2014 transactions (cocaine, 1.9 kg of ice, heroin) to Paulette and aggregated them for Guidelines drug-quantity calculation (~9 kg cocaine, 1.9 kg ice, 56 g heroin), producing a life-range Guidelines calculation.
- Paulette objected to counting pre-2013 transactions (with Brim, Barnett, Garcia, Lewis) as relevant conduct, arguing the conspiracy began in March 2013; the district court overruled the objection, treated the pre-2013 dealings as jointly undertaken criminal activity and relevant conduct, and sentenced Paulette to 300 months after downward variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Paulette) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guilty plea admitted the full scope (dates/participants) of the conspiracy so pre-2013 transactions count as relevant conduct | Paulette: plea admitted only essential elements; he never admitted a conspiracy before March 2013 or with unnamed coconspirators, so pre-2013 deals shouldn’t count | Government: plea (and indictment) admitted the conspiracy as alleged (2007–2014, unnamed persons, specified drug amounts) so those facts are established for sentencing | Court: Plea admits only elements; dates/participants not automatically admitted. But Paulette’s plea agreement admitted methamphetamine quantity, tying pre-2013 meth transactions to the conspiracy; district court did not err in treating challenged transactions as relevant conduct given that admission and record evidence |
| Whether Paulette’s admission that the conspiracy “involved” ≥50 g methamphetamine conclusively establishes inclusion of specific meth transactions as relevant conduct | Paulette: the plea-quantity admission shouldn’t force attribution of specific pre-2013 meth deals to the charged conspiracy | Government: the plea agreement admission is binding and thus links meth amounts in the PSR to the conspiracy | Held: The admission is conclusive for sentencing; the court may attribute the meth transactions reflected in the record to the conspiracy |
| Whether district court needed a more detailed explanation for including disputed transactions in quantity calculation | Paulette: court’s explanation was insufficient; objection was preserved | Government: PSR and plea admission justified inclusion; explanation adequate | Held: Objection was minimally developed and unsupported by evidence; given plea admission and record, the court’s explanation was sufficient |
| Whether inclusion of disputed quantities requires remand or reduction of Guideline calculation | Paulette: excluding pre-2013 amounts would lower base offense level and Guidelines range | Government: admitted quantities plus PSR support the calculated totals | Held: Even excluding some disputes, inclusion of meth admission plus other quantities supports life-range Guidelines; district court’s chosen 300-month sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dean, 705 F.3d 745 (7th Cir.) (plea admits essential elements only)
- United States v. Kilcrease, 665 F.3d 924 (7th Cir.) (same principle on plea scope)
- United States v. Garcia, 580 F.3d 528 (7th Cir.) (distinguishing elements from sentencing facts)
- United States v. Bjorkman, 270 F.3d 482 (7th Cir.) (elements v. factual allegations for sentencing)
- United States v. Tolson, 988 F.2d 1494 (7th Cir.) (discussion of plea admissions to indictment allegations contrasted in later decisions)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (Sup. Ct.) (plea admissions of charge elements)
- United States v. Savage, 891 F.2d 145 (7th Cir.) (effect of plea plus additional admissions/stipulations)
- United States v. Krasinski, 545 F.3d 546 (7th Cir.) (conclusiveness of plea agreement admissions for sentencing)
- United States v. Warneke, 310 F.3d 542 (7th Cir.) (binding effect of plea admission on sentencing)
- United States v. Ortiz, 431 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir.) (preservation standard for sentencing objections)
- United States v. Jackson, 547 F.3d 786 (7th Cir.) (no remand where sentencing challenge is scantily developed)