United States v. Slade
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1692
4th Cir.2011Background
- Slade, a mid-level drug trafficker, supplied cocaine base, cocaine, and marijuana to multiple co-conspirators in Craven County, NC.
- Co-conspirators sold drugs for Slade; Slade was transported to deals by his cousin; witnesses described Slade as carrying firearms.
- PSR found base offense level 34, +2 for firearm possession, +3 for leadership role, -3 for acceptance of responsibility.
- District court adopted PSR and sentenced Slade to 365 months, the top of the guidelines range.
- Slade pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute substantial quantities of cocaine base and cocaine.
- On appeal, Slade challenged the leadership enhancement and argued plain error occurred in imposing it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether drug quantity for §2D1.1 was properly calculated | Slade contends PSR evidence is unreliable for 20,515 kg marijuana equivalence | Government argues quantity supported by co-conspirator testimony and foreseeability | No reversible error; quantity supported by the record and §1B1.3(a)(1)(B) liability for co-conspirators |
| Whether the two-level firearm enhancement under §2D1.1(b)(1) was proper | Slade argues no credible connection between weapon and conspiracy | Government shows co-conspirator testimony and Slade's history of gun offenses establish connection | Properly applied; weapons connection supported by record and conduct |
| Whether Slade properly qualifies for the three-level leadership enhancement under §3B1.1 | Record lacks evidence of Slade actively managing or supervising others | PSR and testimony show Slade in a leadership position controlling drug distribution | Plain error; no evidence Slade managed or supervised participants; enhancement vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195 (4th Cir.1999) (review of drug quantity for sentencing; burden on defendant to show PSR error; plain error standard)
- United States v. Lipford, 203 F.3d 259 (4th Cir.2000) (conspiracy liability for reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators)
- United States v. McDonald, 61 F.3d 248 (4th Cir.1995) (guidelines quantity attribution principles)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain-error standard)
- United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219 (4th Cir.2002) (manager or supervisor enhancement requires supervisory authority)
- United States v. Bartley, 230 F.3d 667 (4th Cir.2000) (affirming §3B1.1(b) where defendant directed activities of drug operation)
- United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381 (4th Cir.2010) (affirming §3B1.1(b) where defendant exercised supervisory responsibility)
- United States v. Diaz-Ibarra, 522 F.3d 343 (4th Cir.2008) (reasonableness of sentence under plain-error framework)
- United States v. Cameron, 573 F.3d 179 (4th Cir.2009) (3B1.1 analysis and supervisory role criteria)
- United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326 (4th Cir.2008) (standard for clear error in sentencing findings)