United States v. Taylor
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6387
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- ATF conducted 'Operation No Escape' against Byron Blake's crack enterprise in East St. Louis, including wiretaps and surveillance of Blake, Taylor, Ivory, and others; searches were executed at 114 Blazier Drive, where Blake and Taylor spent substantial time.
- Taylor was indicted on six counts in March 2009, including conspiracy to distribute over 50 g of crack and distribution of over 50 g on October 20, 2005, under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(A)(iii).
- The government proved Count 2 by the October 20 controlled buy, with Woods and Ivory testifying to Taylor’s role in the November 10, 2005 and October 20 deals; on October 20, Blake and Taylor conducted the deal in Woods’s car with Taylor driving and renting the vehicle.
- Taylor testified, denying involvement and attributing the calls to marijuana deals; the government rebutted with agents showing calls and other evidence inconsistent with marijuana dealing.
- The jury convicted Taylor on all counts; on Count 1 the verdict form asked whether the offense involved more than 50 g or more than 5 g, and the jury answered yes to both.
- PSR calculations attributed large quantities of powder and crack cocaine and marijuana, leading to a total marijuana equivalency of 17,046 kg and an offense level of 36 after a two-level obstruction enhancement; Taylor challenged the relevant conduct and obstruction enhancement in sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting the October 20 deal | Taylor argues no evidence he associated with or intentionally aided the October 20 deal | Taylor contends presence and prior acts do not prove aiding and abetting | Yes; substantial evidence showed Taylor’s affirmative participation and prior dealing, supporting aiding and abetting conviction |
| Whether district court properly treated drug quantity beyond jury verdict | Taylor argues Apprendi concerns violated by referencing larger quantity | Government says verdict on counts 1–2 suffices; sentencing below statutory max138 | Yes; quantity determinations did not exceed the jury's capacity to support sentence; binding range remained below the max with the verdicts |
| Sufficiency of findings for obstruction of justice enhancement | Taylor asserts perjury finding insufficient under Dunnigan | District court properly found perjury beyond a general denial | Yes; district court’s explicit perjury finding based on false, material, willful testimony adequately supports enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spells, 537 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2008) (sufficiency review uses rationality and credibility considerations not reweighing evidence)
- United States v. Heath, 188 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 1999) (association and participation required for aiding and abetting)
- United States v. Sewell, 159 F.3d 275 (7th Cir. 1998) (participation to make venture succeed; association and participation concepts)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (perjury elements require willful false testimony on material matters)
- United States v. Vallar, 635 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 2011) (obstruction of justice enhancement reviewed for clear error and de novo adequacy)
- United States v. Hernandez, 330 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2003) (special verdict on amount not controlling when sentence respects statutory max)