United States v. Ronald Love
706 F.3d 832
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Love was convicted by a jury of distributing crack cocaine and conspiring to distribute crack cocaine.
- Cowart, a CI, approached the government to obtain leniency in exchange for cooperating against Love.
- The September 9, 2009 drug sale involved a controlled buy arranged by Cowart; Love was present during the exchange.
- A subsequent September 14, 2009 meeting led to a beating of Cowart, with Acklin and Deloney assisting Love’s efforts.
- Cowart’s testimony and surveillance evidence tied Love to a drug-dealing enterprise and to a conspiracy.
- Love challenges the sufficiency of evidence, the buyer-seller instruction, hearsay ruling, and his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the conspiracy conviction supported by sufficient evidence? | Love argues the record shows only a buyer-seller relationship. | Love contends there was no joint objective to distribute drugs. | Yes; there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy. |
| Should the court have given a buyer-seller instruction? | Love argues the instruction was necessary to distinguish conspiracy. | The instruction would confuse the jury and contradict Love’s defense. | No; instruction declined properly. |
| Was the September 9-14 statements/hearsay properly admitted? | Love claims Deloney’s question was hearsay. | Question seeking information, not an assertion, so not hearsay. | No abuse of discretion; questioning not hearsay. |
| Does Love qualify for Fair Sentencing Act relief on remand? | Love should receive FSA consideration since sentencing occurred after its enactment. | FSA inapplicable under pre-Act conduct at time of offense. | Remanded for resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act. |
| Was Love’s drug-quantity calculation correct given lack of intent to provide 1.5 ounces? | The 1.5-ounce quantity should be excluded because Love did not intend to provide it. | Quantities should reflect intended or negotiated amount. | Plain error; the 1.5 ounces should be excluded from the calculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Griffin, 684 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2012) (deference to jury verdict on conspiracy elements)
- United States v. Avila, 557 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2009) (standard for conspiracy elements)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review; defer to jury findings)
- United States v. Walker, 673 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2012) (sufficiency review framework in conspiracy cases)
- United States v. Chavis, 429 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2005) (buyer-seller instruction where applicable)