United States v. William Long
457 F. App'x 534
6th Cir.2012Background
- Long, the Hamilton County Sheriff, pleaded guilty to 27 counts including extortion, money laundering, firearms to a felon, and cocaine distribution; count 28 for possession of a firearm during a drug crime was to be dismissed at sentencing.
- District court calculated a base drug-offense level of 34 (46.25 kg of cocaine) and applied two-level increases for a gun and for abuse of public trust, resulting in an adjusted level of 38 and a 168-month overall sentence (plus 120 months on the drug count pending dismissal).
- PSR grouped 27 counts under § 3D1.2 and used the highest single-count level. The PSR attributed 46.25 kg of cocaine to Long for the drug quantity.
- The money-laundering counts were grouped under § 3D1.2 and § 2S1.1; the PSR applied § 2S1.1(a)(1) (underlying-offense-based) based on a $525,000 figure laundered through drug profits.
- Long objected to both drug quantity and money-laundering calculations, arguing the court should use § 2S1.1(a)(2) (amount-based) and that the $525,000 reflects no underlying offense, since the drug conspiracy was not proven.
- The court sentenced Long and he timely appealed, challenging the base-offense calculations and the relevant-conduct determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of drug quantity for base level | Long argues the 46.25 kg and related inclusion were erroneous as relevant conduct. | Long contends the district court erred by not limiting to actual, proven quantities and by relying on amounts tied to a cooperating witness without a valid underlying offense. | Vacated; remanded for resentencing with proper application of § 2S1.1(a)(2). |
| Appropriate base level for money laundering | Long contends § 2S1.1(a)(1) (underlying offense) is inapplicable because no valid underlying offense occurred; § 1B1.3(a)(1) cannot tie him to drug trafficking. | Long maintains the court should use § 2S1.1(a)(2) with laundered-funds value ($10,550) rather than the $525,000 figure. | The court should apply § 2S1.1(a)(2); the $525,000 figure cannot be used as relevant conduct. |
| applicability of Shafer/Maken principles to § 1B1.3 and § 2S1.1 | Shafer limits relevant conduct to offenses that could lead to incarceration; the government’s evidence does not show such offenses. | Long argues the district court failed to identify a prosecutable underlying offense and should not treat the government’s representations as conduct. | District court error; remand for applying § 2S1.1(a)(2) and excluding the $525,000-based calculation. |
| Judicial handling of a motion to psych-examine cooperating witness | Long sought a psychological examination of the cooperating witness to assess influence on sentencing. | The district court acted within its discretion in denying the motion, citing lack of authority and potential harm to investigations. | Affirmed denial; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shafer, 199 F.3d 826 (6th Cir. 1999) (limits relevant conduct to offenses that could lead to incarceration)
- United States v. Maken, 510 F.3d 654 (6th Cir. 2007) (harmless error where underlying offense could not be identified)
- United States v. Harris, 200 F. App’x 472 (6th Cir. 2006) (relevant-conduct findings require identifiable offenses)
- United States v. Anderson, 526 F.3d 319 (6th Cir. 2008) (two-condition test for § 2S1.1(a)(1) applicability)
- United States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1984) (conspiracy with government agent cannot support offense)
- United States v. Hayden, 68 F. App’x 530 (6th Cir. 2003) (recognizes limitations on relevant-conduct theory in conspiracy contexts)