United States v. Tankson
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16668
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- FBI sting of a Chicago drug ring identified Charles Tankson as a heroin supplier to Walter Blackman; four transactions (Nov 2012–Jan 2013) involved at least 100 grams each.
- Tankson was arrested April 2013, waived Miranda rights in writing and orally, and gave a post-arrest statement (unrecorded, summarized by agents) admitting the charged sales and describing broader trafficking from two Mexican suppliers, estimating ~100 orders of 300–400 g over ~2 years.
- Tankson pleaded guilty via a written plea declaration to the four counts (no plea agreement); he later contested use of his earlier post-arrest statement at sentencing and sought suppression pretrial (denied) and contested factual findings at sentencing.
- The PSR credited the post-arrest statement and attributed ~30 kg additional heroin as relevant conduct, producing a base offense level leading the court to treat him as a career offender; PSR also applied an obstruction enhancement and denied acceptance credit.
- The district court (after hearing testimony and argument) found the statement reliable by a preponderance, concluded the uncharged quantities were part of the same course of conduct/common scheme, counted a 1995 conviction for career-offender purposes (because relevant conduct dated back to 2011), and sentenced Tankson below the guideline range to 228 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability of post-arrest statement as basis for large additional drug-quantity finding | Tankson: his voluntary confession is nonetheless unreliable/too vague and insufficiently corroborated to support attributing ~30 kg | Government: statement is self-inculpatory, corroborated in key respects by investigation and facts, and admissible at sentencing by preponderance | Court: Statement was voluntary, not patently incredible, had corroborative indicia; district court did not abuse discretion and quantity finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether uncharged quantities qualify as "relevant conduct" under U.S.S.G. §1B1.3(a)(2) | Tankson: additional sales are not sufficiently connected (dates, victims, modus operandi) to the charged offenses | Govt: same drug, same supplier/modus operandi/timeframe; continuous pattern supports aggregation | Court: transactions shared common supplier, modus operandi, timeframe and purpose; they were part of same course of conduct — relevant conduct stands |
| Use of 1995 conviction to trigger career-offender enhancement | Tankson: parole/completion in 1997 puts incarceration outside 15-year window so the 1995 conviction cannot be counted | Govt: relevant-conduct timeframe extends back to 2011, so the 1995 conviction falls within the 15-year window under §4A1.2(e)(1) when relevant conduct is included | Court: Because relevant conduct dating to 2011 was properly found, counting the 1995 conviction was permissible and career-offender treatment was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing court must correctly calculate Guidelines range)
- United States v. Robinson, 164 F.3d 1068 (7th Cir. 1999) (caution when heavy quantity findings rest on untested witness statements)
- United States v. Morrison, 207 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2000) (corroborated addict statements can support large quantity findings)
- United States v. Johnson, 342 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2003) (self-inculpatory statements against penal interest are reliable for sentencing)
- United States v. Contreras, 249 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2001) (defendant’s post-arrest admissions may be relied on at sentencing even without independent corroboration)
- United States v. White, 519 F.3d 342 (7th Cir. 2008) (relevant-conduct inquiry: similarity, regularity, interval)
- United States v. Ortiz, 431 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir. 2005) (limits on aggregating dissimilar or temporally remote drug sales)
- United States v. Block, 705 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2013) (review of factual drug-quantity findings for clear error)
- United States v. Claybrooks, 729 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2013) (drug-quantity findings required at sentencing; review standard)
- United States v. Cooper, 767 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2014) (preponderance standard for sentencing quantity findings)