United States v. Rahshone Burnett
805 F.3d 787
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Rahshone Burnett was convicted by jury of two counts of possession with intent to distribute heroin (Sept. 5 and Sept. 29, 2009) and acquitted of conspiracy charges. The two convictions involved ~33 grams of heroin combined.
- Trial evidence showed Burnett manufactured, packaged, and directed sales of heroin at a Chicago corner; he admitted buying and reselling heroin from supplier Richard Harrington and testified he purchased 100 grams on one occasion to resell.
- At sentencing in the narcotics case, the PSR and government sought attribution of 1–3 kilograms; the district court instead attributed 100 grams, applied a two‑level leadership enhancement, and sentenced Burnett to 135 months (bottom of Guidelines range).
- Separately, Burnett pled guilty to mail and wire fraud for misusing settlement funds intended for his sister’s children (he was their guardian) to buy luxury items; at sentencing the court applied both a vulnerable‑victim enhancement and an abuse‑of‑trust enhancement and sentenced him to 90 months.
- Burnett appealed both sentences, arguing (1) the district court erred in attributing 100 grams (and in leadership enhancement) in the drug case, and (2) the court improperly double‑counted by applying both enhancements in the fraud case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drug‑quantity relevant conduct at sentencing | Burnett argued the court should not attribute purchases beyond the ~33 g convicted amount; government sought >1 kg | Court may only include unconvicted conduct that is part of same course/scheme; Burnett disputed that his 100 g purchase was relevant conduct | Affirmed: 100 g attributable — Burnett admitted buying 100 g from Harrington and it was part of the same continuous trafficking conduct |
| Leadership/organizer enhancement (drug case) | Burnett contended the evidence did not show he led or organized others to justify enhancement | Government argued video and testimony show Burnett directing others packaging/sales | Affirmed: two‑level enhancement appropriate based on video and other evidence; four‑level not warranted |
| Double counting via dual enhancements (fraud case) | Burnett argued applying both vulnerable‑victim and abuse‑of‑trust enhancements punished same conduct (age/vulnerability) twice | Government argued the Guidelines permit both where they punish different aspects; Application Note 2 does not bar stacking here | Affirmed: both enhancements permissible — they target different misconduct and Note 2 applies only when an offense guideline already incorporates the vulnerability factor |
| Adequacy of district court explanation (drug quantity) | Burnett argued the court failed to adequately explain why 100 g was relevant conduct | Government pointed to Burnett’s trial admissions and sentencing record showing the connection | Affirmed: explanation and record were sufficient; no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Adams, 746 F.3d 734 (7th Cir.) (standard: clear‑error review of relevant‑conduct findings)
- United States v. Baines, 777 F.3d 959 (7th Cir.) (relevant‑conduct/same course or common scheme analysis)
- United States v. Lomax, 712 F.3d 1087 (7th Cir.) (including regular sales as relevant conduct despite different suppliers/locations)
- United States v. Purham, 754 F.3d 411 (7th Cir.) (standard for reviewing leader/organizer enhancement)
- United States v. Vizcarra, 668 F.3d 516 (7th Cir.) (double counting concept and interpretive approach)
- United States v. Nielson, 694 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir.) (Application Note 2 analysis: when an offense guideline already incorporates victim age)