United States v. St. Hill, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. St. Hill, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/21

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2097

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

KEVI N ST. HI LL,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. J ohn A. Woodcock, J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Dyk* and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

St uar t W. Ti sdal e, J r . , wi t h whom Ti sdal e & Davi s, P. A.was on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Margaret D. McGaughey, Assi st ant U. S. At t orney, wi t h whomThomas E. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Oct ober 1, 2014

* Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/21

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Af t er Kevi n St . Hi l l pl ed gui l t y

t o di st r i but i ng oxycodone, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat ot her

unchar ged dr ug sal es by St . Hi l l wer e r el evant t o det er mi ni ng hi s

gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange. St . Hi l l appeal s, ar gui ng t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t appl i ed bot h t he wr ong st andard and the wr ong met hod

of compar i son i n determi ni ng what unchar ged dr ug sal es were

r el evant t o hi s sent ence. We af f i r m.

I. Background

I n December , 2012, Kevi n St . Hi l l pl ed gui l t y ( wi t hout a

pl ea bar gai n) t o one count of di st r i but i ng oxycodone i n vi ol at i on

of 21 U. S. C. 841 ( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( C) . Accor di ng t o t he

gover nment ' s ver si on of t he f act s, on J une 26, 2012, agent s f r om

t he Dr ug Enf orcement Agency ( "DEA") , al ong wi t h a conf i dent i al

i nf or mant ( "CI " ) , deci ded t o pur chase $600 wor t h of oxycodone pi l l s

f r omSt . Hi l l . The CI cal l ed hi m, ar r anged f or t he sal e, and dr ove

( wi t h a DEA t ask f or ce agent ) t o t he l ocat i on i n August a, Mai ne,

wher e t he sal e was t o t ake pl ace. Shor t l y t her eaf t er , a bl ue

Must ang ar r i ved. St . Hi l l emer ged f r om t he Must ang, cl i mbed i nt o

t he rear passenger seat of t he DEA agent ' s car , and handed t he CI

20 oxycodone pi l l s. The agent t hen gave St . Hi l l $600, and St .

Hi l l l ef t .

I n addi t i on t o t he f act s as we have descr i bed t hem, t he

Pr esent ence I nvest i gat i on Repor t ( "PSR") r el at ed t hat on t he day of

t he cont r ol l ed buy, t he CI had cont act ed St . Hi l l "i n an ef f or t t o

-2-


3/21

pur chase cocai ne and Oxycodone. St . Hi l l agr eed t o sel l Oxycodone

t o [ t he CI ] , but st at ed t hat he di d not have any cocai ne at t hat

t i me. St . Hi l l di d not e t hat he coul d obt ai n cocai ne i n sever al

hour s. " The PSR al so not ed t hat t he CI had "i dent i f i ed St . Hi l l as

a l ar ge- scal e t r af f i cker of Oxycodone and cocai ne i n Cent r al

Mai ne. " St . Hi l l does not chal l enge t hi s i nf or mat i on on appeal .

Sect i on 1B1. 3( a) of t he Uni t ed St at es Sent enci ng Gui del i nes

r equi r es t he sent enci ng j udge, i n cal cul at i ng t he gui del i ne

sent enci ng r ange, t o t ake i nt o consi der at i on cer t ai n " r el evant

conduct " ot her t han t he of f ense of convi ct i on. Such r el evant

conduct i ncl udes, f or cer t ai n of f enses such as t hat t o whi ch St .

Hi l l pl ed gui l t y, ot her dr ug sal es t hat wer e "par t of t he same

cour se of conduct or common scheme or pl an as t he of f ense of

convi ct i on. " U. S. Sent enci ng Gui del i nes Manual 1B1. 3( a) ( 2)

( 2012) .

Par agr aphs 3 and 4B of St . Hi l l ' s PSR descr i bed sever al

ot her dr ug sal es t hat t he par t i es agr eed const i t ut ed r el evant

conduct f or pur poses of cal cul at i ng St . Hi l l ' s gui del i ne sent enci ng

r ange. Fi r st , t he PSR descr i bed a cont r ol l ed buy on Apr i l 18,

2012, when anot her conf i dent i al sour ce pul l ed up t o the home of

Thomas Fl ynn i n August a. St . Hi l l got i nt o t he car and sol d t he

sour ce 3. 7 net gr ams of cocai ne base f or $600. Second, t he PSR

expl ai ned t hat a CI ( t he same one, i t appear s, who par t i ci pat ed i n

t he cont r ol l ed buy on J une 26, 2012) r ecount ed t hat he or she

-3-


4/21

bought oxycodone f r omSt . Hi l l t hr ee t i mes i n one week somet i me i n

Apr i l or May of 2012. Each t i me, t he CI bought t en 30 mg oxycodone

pi l l s f rom St . Hi l l . Al l t ol d, t he of f ense of convi ct i on and t he

undi sput ed r el evant conduct r esul t ed i n St . Hi l l bei ng hel d

account abl e f or sel l i ng 3. 7 gr ams of cocai ne base and r oughl y 1. 46

grams of oxycodone.

Par agr aph 4A of t he PSR al so at t r i but ed t o St . Hi l l a

ser i es of dr ug sal es t ot al i ng an addi t i onal 76. 65 gr ams of

oxycodone. St . Hi l l cont est ed bot h t hat t he sal es wer e est abl i shed

by suf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e evi dence and t hat t hey wer e r el evant

conduct under t he Gui del i nes. The sect i on of t he PSR di scussi ng

t he sal es r epor t ed as f ol l ows:

Sever al conf i dent i al i nf or mant s wer ei nt er vi ewed r egar di ng St . Hi l l ' s dr ugdi str i but i on act i vi t i es. They consi stent l yst at ed t hat St . Hi l l was a l ar ge- scal eOxycodone and cocai ne base t r af f i cker , whor ecei ved t hose subst ances vi a shi pment s f r omNew Yor k. The conf i dent i al i nf or mant sr epor t ed t hat St . Hi l l di st r i but ed t he dr ugsi n t he August a and Water vi l l e areas of Mai neal ong wi t h f our or f i ve ot her i ndi vi dual sf r om New Yor k. They descr i be St . Hi l l as t hel eader of t hi s gr oup of i ndi vi dual s . . . .One conf i dent i al i nf or mant ( her ei naf t er CI - 3)advi sed t hat he/ she obt ai ned 30 mg Oxycodonepi l l s f r om St . Hi l l bet ween J anuar y and atl east May 2012, whi ch he/ she subsequent l yr esol d. CI - 3 r epor t ed t hat i n J anuar y 2012,

he/ she recei ved a conservat i vel y est i mat ed 5( 30 mg) Oxycodone pi l l s per day f or t he 31days i n J anuar y. Ther ef or e f or t he mont h ofJ anuar y 2012, i t i s conser vat i vel y est i mat edt hat he/ she pur chased 155 ( 30 mg Oxycodonepi l l s ) f rom St . Hi l l . CI - 3 advi sed t hat f romFebr uar y 2012 t hrough May 2012, he/ she

-4-


5/21

pur chased an est i mat ed 20 ( 30 mg) Oxycodonepi l l s per day f r omSt . Hi l l . Si nce t hat per i odcont ai ns a t ot al of 120 days, i t i s est i mat edt hat he/ she pur chased 2, 400 ( 30 mg) Oxycodonepi l l s f r om St . Hi l l bet ween Febr uar y 2012 andMay 2012. Ther ef or e, St . Hi l l i s account abl e

f or di st r i but i ng a t ot al of 2, 555 ( 30 mg)Oxycodone pi l l s t o CI - 2 [ si c] .

I n di sput i ng t hat t he sal es di scussed i n par agr aph 4A of

t he PSR const i t ut ed r el evant conduct f or sent enci ng pur poses, St .

Hi l l ' s present ence memor andum emphasi zed t hat al l of t he

t r ansact i ons ot her t han t hose i n par agr aph 4A "have cer t ai n

si mi l ar i t i es: t hey ar e f or smal l quant i t i es of dr ugs consi st ent

wi t h personal use, pur chased wi t h cash and apparent l y not i nt ended

f or r esal e. They ar e i sol at ed i n t i me and do not i nvol ve

cont i nui ng agr eement s t o pur chase f ur t her dr ugs. Fi nal l y, t hey ar e

r el at i vel y cl ose i n t i me. " He ar gued t hat t he conduct descr i bed i n

paragr aph 4A of t he PSR " i s not r el evant conduct t o t he of f ense of

convi ct i on i n t hat t he nat ur e of t he conduct set f or t h i n

[ par agr aph 4A] i s di f f er ent i n ki nd f r om t hat i n 3 and 4B as t o

quant i t i es, met hods of di st r i but i on, par t i ci pant s, and nat ur e of

t he t r ansact i ons. " He ar gued t hat t he t r ansact i ons coul d not be

r el evant conduct because t hey were nei t her par t of a "common scheme

or pl an" nor t he "same cour se of conduct " as t he of f ense of

convi ct i on.

I n a l engt hy and det ai l ed or der , t he di st r i ct cour t

r ej ect ed St . Hi l l ' s argument s and so i ncl uded t he par agr aph 4A

i nf or mat i on i n cal cul at i ng hi s base of f ense l evel . Thi s deci si on

-5-


6/21

i ncr eased t he Gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange f r om 30- 37 mont hs t o

84- 105 mont hs. The cour t ul t i mat el y sent enced St . Hi l l t o 84

mont hs' i mpr i sonment . St . Hi l l t i mel y appeal ed.

St . Hi l l poi nt edl y does not ar gue on appeal t hat t he

Gui del i nes, as pr oper l y appl i ed, woul d not have al l owed t he

di st r i ct cour t t o f i nd t hat t he sal es descr i bed i n par agr aph 4A of

t he PSR wer e rel evant conduct f or t he pur poses of sent enci ng on hi s

of f ense of convi ct i on. Rat her , he ar gues onl y t hat , i n t wo

r espect s, t he di st r i ct cour t r eached i t s concl usi on by mi sappl yi ng

t he Gui del i nes st andar ds. He ar gues, f i r st , t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t appl i ed t he wr ong l egal st andar d because, accor di ng t o St .

Hi l l , t he di str i ct cour t r ested i t s f i ndi ng t hat t he sal es

descr i bed i n par agr aph 4A were r el evant conduct on a test

appl i cabl e onl y t o conspi r acy of f enses ( or of f enses i n whi ch t he

conduct of someone ot her t han t he def endant i s at t r i but ed to hi m

f or sent enci ng pur poses) . He ar gues, second, t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed because i t f ocused i t s at t ent i on and f i ndi ngs on

whet her t he conduct r epor t ed i n par agr aph 4A was suf f i ci ent l y

connect ed onl y t o t he ot her undi sput ed rel evant conduct , r at her

t han di r ect l y t o t he of f ense of convi ct i on.

II. Standard of Review

St . Hi l l makes no cl ai mt hat he pr esent ed t o t he di st r i ct

cour t t he t wo argument s he now advances on appeal , and we have

f ound no such pr esent at i on. Accor di ngl y, we r evi ew f or pl ai n

-6-


7/21

er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Tavar es, 705 F. 3d 4, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

Under t hat st andar d, "[ s] uccess on appeal r equi r es [ St . Hi l l ] t o

demonst r ate: 1) an er r or ; 2) t hat was pl ai n or obvi ous; and whi ch

3) af f ect ed hi s subst ant i al r i ght s; and al so 4) ser i ousl y i mpai r ed

t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of t he j udi ci al

pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sant i ago- Bur gos, 750 F. 3d 19, 24

( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

III. Analysis

A. The district court found that the paragraph 4A conduct

was part of the same course of conduct as the offense ofconviction.

Gui del i nes sect i on 1B1. 3( a) ( 2) pr ovi des t hat , wi t h

"f ungi bl e i t emcr i mes" l i ke dr ug deal i ng, Uni t ed St at es v. Bl anco,

888 F. 2d 907, 911 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) , a def endant ' s base of f ense l evel shoul d be cal cul at ed

based not mer el y on t he of f ense of convi ct i on, but al so on, among

ot her t hi ngs, "al l act s and omi ssi ons commi t t ed, ai ded, abet t ed,

counsel ed, commanded, i nduced, pr ocur ed, or wi l l f ul l y caused by t he

def endant " " t hat were par t of t he same cour se of conduct or common

scheme or pl an as t he of f ense of convi ct i on. " U. S. S. G. 1B1. 3( a) .

" ' Common scheme or pl an' and ' same cour se of conduct ' are t wo

cl osel y r el at ed concept s. " I d. 1B1. 3 cmt . 9. The Gui del i nes

comment ar y speci f i es t hat " [ f ] or t wo or mor e of f enses t o const i t ut e

par t of a common scheme or pl an, t hey must be subst ant i al l y

connect ed t o each ot her by at l east one common f act or , such as

-7-


8/21

common vi ct i ms, common accompl i ces, common purpose, or si mi l ar

modus operandi . " I d. Moreover ,

[ o] f f enses t hat do not qual i f y as par t of acommon scheme or pl an may nonet hel ess qual i f y

as par t of t he same cour se of conduct i f t heyar e suf f i ci ent l y connect ed or r el at ed t o eachot her as t o war r ant t he concl usi on t hat t heyar e par t of a si ngl e epi sode, spr ee, orongoi ng ser i es of of f enses. Fact or s t hat areappr opr i at e t o [ t hat ] det er mi nat i on . . .i ncl ude t he degr ee of si mi l ar i t y of t heof f enses, t he r egul ar i t y ( r epet i t i ons) of t heof f enses, and t he t i me i nt er val bet ween t heof f enses. When one of t he above f actors i sabsent , a st r onger pr esence of at l east one oft he ot her f act or s i s r equi r ed. [ 1]

I d.

St . Hi l l ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t appl i ed t he

"common scheme or pl an" st andar d when i t shoul d have appl i ed t he

"same cour se of conduct " st andar d. Under St . Hi l l ' s di chot omous

vi ew of t he Gui del i nes st andard, a "common scheme or pl an" can onl y

exi st i n t he cont ext of a conspi r acy, or at l east wher e someone

el se' s conduct i s bei ng at t r i but ed t o a def endant f or sent enci ng

1 Comment at or s have expr essed some conf usi on as t o why t hi ssect i on uses t he t er m "of f ense" r at her t han, f or exampl e,"conduct . " See Thomas W. Hut chi son et al . , Feder al Sent enci ng Lawand Pr act i ce 1B1. 3, aut hor s' cmt . 7( b) ( 2014 ed. ) . Al t hough t heGui del i nes gener al l y def i ne "of f ense" t o i ncl ude bot h t he of f enseof convi ct i on and al l associ at ed r el evant conduct , see U. S. S. G.

1B1. 1 cmt . n. 1( H) , t he par t i es her e f ocus on t he use of "of f enseof convi ct i on" i n 1B1. 3( a) ( 2) , and pr esent no cogent ar gumentbased on t he use of "of f ense" i n t he Gui del i nes comment ary. Cf .Uni t ed St at es v. Bl ackwel l , 323 F. 3d 1256, 1260 ( 10t h Ci r . 2003) ( i naddr essi ng t he vi ct i m- st atus enhancement under U. S. S. G. 3A1. 2,not i ng the di st i nct i on bet ween t he use of "of f ense" and "of f ense ofconvi ct i on" as i t per t ai ns t o t he i ncl usi on of r el evant conduct ) .

-8-


9/21

pur poses. Whi l e a conspi r acy i s cer t ai nl y a good exampl e of a

"common scheme or pl an, " and so t he phr ases ar e somet i mes used

i nt er changeabl y, see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Wood, 924 F. 2d 399,

403- 04 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) , i t i s not r eadi l y appar ent why a conspi r acy

i n par t i cul ar , or concer t ed act i on i n gener al , i s a necessar y

el ement t hat l i mi t s t he def i ni t i on of a common scheme or pl an. I n

any event , we need not f ol l ow t hi s anal ysi s t o i t s concl usi on

because St . Hi l l ' s st ar t i ng pr emi se- - t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

f i ndi ng of r el evant conduct hi nged on a f i ndi ng t hat t he conduct

was par t of a common scheme or pl an- - i s si mpl y wr ong. The di st r i ct

cour t pl ai nl y sai d t hat t he sal es descr i bed i n par agr aph 4A "shoul d

be i ncl uded as r el evant conduct as par t of a common scheme or pl an

and part of t he same cour se of conduct under U. S. S. G. 1B1. 3. "

( emphasi s added) . Nor di d t he di st r i ct cour t r est i t s concl usi on

on f act or s t hat are pert i nent onl y to appl yi ng t he "common scheme

or pl an" st andar d. The di st r i ct cour t expr essl y consi der ed, f or

exampl e, t he "commonal i t i es" bet ween t he var i ous t r ansact i ons

( i . e. , t hei r si mi l ar i t y) and t he t i me i nt er val bet ween t he r epeat ed

of f enses. 2 So i f t he conduct was r el evant conduct as par t of t he

"same cour se of conduct , " i t mat t er s not whet her i t was al so par t

2 As noted above, t wo i nci dent s ar e onl y part of t he samecour se of conduct "i f t hey ar e suf f i ci ent l y connect ed or r el at ed t oeach ot her as t o war r ant t he concl usi on t hat t hey ar e par t of asi ngl e epi sode, spr ee, or ongoi ng ser i es of of f enses, " whi ch wedet er mi ne by assessi ng, i nt er al i a, "t he degr ee of si mi l ar i t y oft he of f enses, t he r egul ar i t y ( r epet i t i ons) of t he of f enses, and t het i me i nt er val bet ween t he of f enses. " U. S. S. G. 1B1. 3 cmt . 9.

-9-


10/21

of a common scheme or pl an. We t heref ore t ur n t o St . Hi l l ' s second

ar gument - - t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n how i t deci ded t hat t he

conduct descr i bed i n paragr aph 4A was par t of t he same cour se of

conduct as t he of f ense of convi ct i on.

B. There was no plain error in the district court's method

of finding that the paragraph 4A conduct was part of the

same course of conduct as the offense of conviction.

The Gui del i nes provi de t hat , t o be " r el evant conduct , "

uncharged conduct must be connect ed to t he of f ense of convi ct i on.

See Uni t ed St at es v. Sant os Bat i st a, 239 F. 3d 16, 22 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) ( " [ A] def endant must not onl y be r esponsi bl e f or any

unchar ged act s t o be consi der ed i n hi s sent enci ng, but t hose act s

al so must be l i nked t o t he of f ense of convi ct i on. ") . St . Hi l l

ar gues t hat a l i nk suf f i ci ent t o show t he "same cour se of conduct "

must be pr oved di r ect l y bet ween t he ost ensi bl y rel evant conduct and

t he of f ense of convi ct i on- - not mer el y bet ween t hat conduct and some

ot her r el evant conduct . And, i ndeed, sever al cour t s have so hel d.

See Uni t ed St at es v. Bul l ock, 454 F. 3d 637, 639- 42 ( 7t h Ci r . 2006)

( not i ng t hat connect i ng di sput ed r el evant conduct t o ot her r el evant

conduct "doesn' t make i t r el evant t o [ t he] act ual of f ense of

convi ct i on . . . . That i s, i t ' s rel evant onl y by associ at i on wi t h

ot her r el evant conduct , t hr ough a ki nd of cri mi nal t r ansi t i vi t y.

That ' s not good enough. " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Pi nni ck, 47 F. 3d 434,

436, 438- 39 ( D. C. Ci r . 1995) ( expl ai ni ng t hat " t he gover nment must

demonst r at e a connect i on between count t hr ee and t he of f ense of

-10-


11/21

convi ct i on, not bet ween count t hr ee and t he ot her of f enses of f er ed

as rel evant conduct . ") . Cf . al so Uni t ed St at es v. Rhi ne, 583 F. 3d

878, 885- 86 ( 5t h Ci r . 2009) ( descr i bi ng t he Gui del i nes as pr ovi di ng

t hat " [ a] separat e, unadj udi cat ed of f ense may be par t of a common

scheme or pl an- - and t hus r el evant conduct - - i f i t i s ' subst ant i al l y

connect ed t o [ t he of f ense of convi ct i on] by at l east one common

f act or , such as common vi ct i ms, common accompl i ces, common purpose,

or si mi l ar modus oper andi . ' " ( quot i ng U. S. S. G. 1B1. 3

cmt . 9( A) ) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cyr , 337 F. 3d

96, 102- 03 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( r easoni ng t hat whi l e t wo pr i or her oi n

convi ct i ons wer e r el evant conduct f or t he i nst ant her oi n of f ense,

i t was per mi ssi bl e t o t r eat t wo Xanax- r el at ed convi ct i ons i mposed

j oi nt l y wi t h t hose t wo heroi n convi ct i ons not as r el evant conduct ) .

On t he basi s of t hi s r easoni ng, St . Hi l l ar gues t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t empl oyed an i mpr oper met hod of compar i son i n

det er mi ni ng t hat t he dr ug sal es descr i bed i n paragr aph 4A wer e

r el evant conduct because i t exami ned t hei r nexus t o the ot her

( undi sput ed) r el evant conduct , r at her t han t o the of f ense of

convi ct i on. St . Hi l l i s cor r ect t hat t he di str i ct cour t di d not

l i mi t i t s exami nat i on t o compar i ng t he sal es descr i bed i n

par agr aph 4A t o onl y t he of f ense of convi ct i on. Nor di d i t l i mi t

i t s descr i pt i on of t he "same cour se of conduct " t o f act s t hat wer e

mani f est i n al l of t he sal es. For exampl e, i n conf i r mi ng t he scal e

of St . Hi l l ' s oper at i on, t he di st r i ct cour t obser ved t hat he had

-11-


12/21

accompl i ces, even t hough t hose accompl i ces were not obvi ousl y

i nvol ved i n t he of f ense of convi ct i on. Si mi l ar l y, i n compar i ng t he

det ai l s of t he dr ug busi ness ( as i t f ound t hem) t o t he conduct

descr i bed i n par agr aph 4A, t he di st r i ct cour t r ef er r ed t o St .

Hi l l ' s ost ensi bl e pr act i ce of possessi ng f i r ear ms, al t hough t her e

wer e no f i r ear ms obvi ousl y i nvol ved i n t he of f ense of convi ct i on.

See, e. g. , U. S. S. G. 1B1. 3 cmt . 9; Uni t ed St at es v. Buck, 324 F. 3d

786, 797 ( 5t h Ci r . 2003) .

We obser ve, f i r st , t hat St . Hi l l ' s tr i al counsel di d not

obj ect t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s appr oach. To t he cont r ar y, t r i al

counsel af f i r mat i vel y i nvi t ed t he di st r i ct cour t t o exami ne t he

ext ent t o whi ch t he paragr aph 4A conduct shar ed t r ai t s i n common

wi t h t he conduct i n par agr aphs 3 and 4B. Our r evi ew of St . Hi l l ' s

cont r ar y posi t i on on appeal i s t her ef or e f or pl ai n er r or , at best .

Uni t ed St at es v. Tavar es, 705 F. 3d at 24.

Nor i s i t pl ai n or obvi ous that t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

accept ance of counsel ' s i nvi t at i on act ual l y l ed i t t o er r . The

di st r i ct cour t ul t i mat el y and expr essl y acknowl edged t hat t he

"unchar ged conduct must be r el evant t o t he char ged conduct . " The

di st r i ct cour t al so f ocused, j ust as St . Hi l l says i t shoul d have,

on t he t ask of expl ai ni ng whet her or not t he ost ensi bl y r el evant

conduct "shoul d be i ncl uded i n the same cour se of conduct or common

scheme or pl an as t he dr ug t r af f i cki ng of f ense f or whi ch [ St . Hi l l

st ood] convi ct ed. "

-12-


13/21

Thi r d, even i f t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n f ai l i ng t o

l i mi t i t s compar at i ve anal ysi s t o t he char ged conduct and t he

put at i ve r el evant conduct , St . Hi l l f ai l s t o demonst r at e t hat any

such er r or af f ect ed hi s subst ant i al r i ght s. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Domi nguez Beni t ez, 542 U. S. 74, 81 ( 2004) ( pl ai n er r or must have "a

pr ej udi ci al ef f ect on t he out come of a j udi ci al pr oceedi ng") ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Gi l man, 478 F. 3d 440, 447 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( To

demonst r at e pr ej udi ce on pl ai n er r or " [ i ] n t he sent enci ng cont ext

. . . a def endant must " show "a reasonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but

f or t he er r or , t he di st r i ct cour t woul d have i mposed a di f f er ent ,

mor e f avor abl e sent ence" ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . We

do not t hi nk that St . Hi l l has demonst r at ed a r easonabl e

pr obabi l i t y t hat t he di st r i ct cour t woul d have r eached a di f f er ent

concl usi on by compar i ng t he of f ense of convi ct i on onl y t o t he

par agr aph 4A sal es. The di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y not ed t hat t he

of f ense of convi ct i on and paragr aph 4A sal es shared commonal i t i es

i n the type of dr ug, dr ug uni t s, gener al pr i ce r ange, geogr aphy,

and t i me f r ame. St . Hi l l does not ar gue t hat t he of f ense of

convi ct i on, t aken al one, woul d be i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a f i ndi ng

t hat t he paragr aph 4A sal es wer e r el evant conduct . He si mpl y

argues t hat t he out come mi ght have been di f f erent under t he pr oper

met hod of anal ysi s. That i s not enough t o demonst r ate pr ej udi ce

af f ect i ng subst ant i al r i ght s. See Gi l man, 478 F. 3d 440, 447;

Uni t ed St at es v. Car ozza, 4 F. 3d 70, 88- 89 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( f i ndi ng

-13-


14/21

no pr ej udi ce wher e def endant argued hi s Gui del i nes r ange "mi ght "

have been di f f er ent had t he di st r i ct cour t not er r ed and t he

di str i ct cour t ' s cal cul at i on was " i n al l l i kel i hood" cor r ect ) .

Fi nal l y, gi ven our pl ai n er r or r evi ew, and St . Hi l l ' s

l i mi t ed f ocus on whether t he r i ght st andards and methods were

appl i ed, we need not consi der t he extent t o whi ch t he di st r i ct

cour t , i n appl yi ng the cor r ect st andar d and met hod, shoul d have

assi gned mor e wei ght t o t he di f f er ences bet ween t he r et ai l - l evel

deal s and t he whol esal e suppl y descr i bed i n paragr aph 4A, a mat t er

not addr essed i n St . Hi l l ' s br i ef s on appeal . Cf . , e. g. , Rhi ne,

583 F. 3d at 889 ( f i ndi ng i nsuf f i ci ent si mi l ar i t y bet ween a one- of f

$5 dr ug sal e t o an i ndi vi dual user and par t i ci pat i on i n a

dr ug- t r af f i cki ng r i ng sel l i ng dr ugs whol esal e t o mi d- l evel

deal er s) .

IV. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct

cour t i s affirmed.

- Concurring Opinion Follows -

-14-


15/21

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge (Concurring). I j oi n the

cour t ' s opi ni on but wr i t e separ at el y t o not e a di st ur bi ng t r end i n

cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons. Al l t oo of t en, pr osecut or s char ge

i ndi vi dual s wi t h r el at i vel y mi nor cr i mes, car r yi ng cor r espondi ngl y

shor t sent ences, but t hen use sect i on 1B1. 3( a) of t he Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes ( "Gui del i nes") t o ar gue f or si gni f i cant l y enhanced t er ms

of i mpr i sonment under t he gui se of " r el evant conduct " - - ot her

cr i mes t hat have not been charged (or , i f char ged, have l ed to an

acqui t t al ) and have not been pr oven beyond a r easonabl e doubt . 3

The i nst ant case provi des a t ypi cal exampl e of t hi s

t r end. St . Hi l l was ar r est ed, char ged, and pl eaded gui l t y t o

di st r i but i ng t went y oxycodone pi l l s wi t h a net wei ght of 0. 56

gr ams. Appl yi ng t he Gui del i nes t o j ust t hi s of f ense, St . Hi l l ' s

base of f ense l evel woul d have been 12. See U. S. Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes Manual ( "U. S. S. G. " ) 2D1. 1( c) ( 14) ( 2012) . Assumi ng t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s ot her f i ndi ngs r emai ned unchanged, St . Hi l l ' s

t ot al of f ense l evel woul d have been r educed t o 9. Wi t h t hi s

3 A pet i t i on f or a wr i t of cer t i or ar i cur r ent l y pendi ngbef ore the Supreme Cour t addr esses a subset of t hese cases i n whi chacqui t t ed conduct - - f or whi ch t he j ur y expl i ci t l y f ound t hedef endant not gui l t y - - i s nonet hel ess used by t he j udge atsent enci ng t o i ncr ease t he def endant ' s sent ence. I n J ones v.Uni t ed St at es, pet i t i oner s ar gue f or t he abi l i t y t o l odge an "as

appl i ed" chal l enge t o t he subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of t hei rsent ences. Accor di ng t o pet i t i oner s, t hei r Gui del i nes ranges, andt hus sent ences, wer e si gni f i cant l y and unconst i t ut i onal l y i ncreasedbased sol el y on a j udge- f ound f act whi ch pet i t i oner s wer e acqui t t edof at t r i al - - t hei r i nvol vement i n t he dr ug- r el at ed conspi r acy.J ones v. Uni t ed St at es, 744 F. 3d 1362 ( D. C. Ci r . 2014) , pet i t i onf or cer t . f i l ed, ( U. S. May 6, 2014) ( No. 13- 10026) .

-15-


16/21

of f ense l evel , and a cri mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I V, t he

Gui del i nes woul d have yi el ded an advi sor y sent ence of 2- 8 mont hs.

See i d. at Sent enci ng Tabl e. However , due t o t hr ee i nci dent s of

" r el evant conduct " - - ( 1) an al l eged sal e of 3. 7 net gr ams of

cocai ne base t o one conf i dent i al i nf or mant ; ( 2) t hr ee al l eged t en-

pi l l oxycodone sal es t ot al i ng 0. 9 gr ams t o a second conf i dent i al

i nf ormant ; and ( 3) t he 76. 65 gr ams of whol esal e oxycodone

t r ansact i ons t hat ar e at i ssue bef or e t he cour t 4 wi t h a t hi r d

conf i dent i al i nf or mant - - hi s base of f ense l evel j umped t o 28 and

hi s resul t i ng t ot al of f ense l evel became 25. Thi s equat ed t o an

advi sor y Gui del i nes sent ence of 84- 105 mont hs of i mpr i sonment .

I n ot her wor ds, St . Hi l l was subj ect t o an addi t i onal si x

t o ei ght year s i n pr i son due t o i sol at ed dr ug sal es not di r ect l y

r el at ed t o t he t went y oxycodone pi l l s whi ch l ed t o hi s convi ct i on,

al l of whi ch he was never ar r est ed f or , never charged wi t h, never

pl eaded gui l t y t o, and never convi ct ed of by a j ur y beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . Thi s i s a pr i me exampl e of t he t ai l waggi ng t he

dog. Even mor e di st ur bi ng: t he gover nment coul d, i f i t so chooses,

st i l l char ge St . Hi l l f or t hese unchar ged cr i mes i n a separ at e

pr oceedi ng, and he coul d be convi ct ed and sent enced agai n wi t hout

pr ot ect i on f r om t he Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause. See Wi t t e v. Uni t ed

St ates, 515 U. S. 389, 406 ( 1995) ( "Because consi der at i on of

4 That St . Hi l l does not chal l enge t wo of t he t hr ee i nci dent sof " r el evant conduct " does not make t he pr act i ce any l essdi st ur bi ng.

-16-


17/21

r el evant conduct i n det er mi ni ng a def endant ' s sent ence wi t hi n t he

l egi sl at i vel y aut hor i zed puni shment r ange does not const i t ut e

puni shment f or t hat conduct , t he i nst ant pr osecut i on does not

vi ol at e t he Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause' s pr ohi bi t i on agai nst t he

i mposi t i on of mul t i pl e puni shment s f or t he same of f ense. " ) .

Thi s i s not t o say t hat sect i on 1B1. 3( a) ' s " r el evant

conduct " consi der at i ons have no pl ace i n sent enci ng def endant s.

Nor i s i t t o say t hat var i ous ot her f act or s - - such as a

def endant ' s pr i or convi ct i ons, r emor se, f ami l y r esponsi bi l i t i es,

and ci vi c cont r i but i ons - - ar e not appr opr i at e sent enci ng

consi der at i ons, or t hat t hey must be pr oven t o a j ur y beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . See 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) ( 1) ( 2010) ( "The cour t ,

i n det er mi ni ng t he part i cul ar sent ence t o be i mposed, shal l

consi der . . . t he hi st or y and char act er i st i cs of t he def endant

. . . . ") ; U. S. S. G. 4A1. 1 ( expl ai ni ng how pr i or convi cti ons ar e

used t o cal cul at e a def endant ' s cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y) .

Rat her , t he poi nt i s t hat i f t he gover nment wi shes t o puni sh a

def endant f or cer t ai n al l eged cr i mi nal conduct , t hen t hat conduct

shoul d be charged i n an i ndi ct ment .

Usi ng t he "r el evant conduct " enhancement on unr el at ed

nar cot i cs t r ansact i ons si mpl y because t he t r ansact i ons i nvol ve

char act er i st i cs common t o most , i f not al l , nar cot i cs t r ansact i ons

i n a gi ven r egi on - - i . e. , si mi l ar t ypes of nar cot i cs, compar abl e

amounts of nar cot i cs, compar abl e pr i ces, a common geogr aphy, and

-17-


18/21

occur r i ng wi t hi n a r el at i vel y shor t t i me f r ame ( and not onl y hour s

or days but ext endi ng as l ong as weeks or mont hs) - - seems t o go

f ar beyond what t he Gui del i nes i nt ended. Thi s i s especi al l y

st r i ki ng when one consi der s t hat t he bur den of pr oof f or t hi s

" r el evant conduct " i s not t he "beyond a r easonabl e doubt " st andard

r equi r ed t o convi ct at t r i al but r at her t he much l ower "by a

pr eponderance of t he evi dence" st andard. Compare U. S. S. G. 6A1. 3

cmt . ( "The Commi ssi on bel i eves t hat use of a pr eponderance of t he

evi dence st andard i s appr opr i ate t o meet due pr ocess r equi r ement s

and pol i cy concer ns i n r esol vi ng di sput es r egar di ng appl i cat i on of

t he gui del i nes t o t he f act s of a case. " ) wi t h Uni t ed St at es v.

Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . 2151, 2156 (2013) ( "The Si xt h Amendment

. . . . i n conj unct i on wi t h t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause, r equi r es t hat

each el ement of a cr i me be pr oved t o t he j ur y beyond a r easonabl e

doubt . " ) . See al so Uni t ed St at es v. Wat t s, 519 U. S. 148, 156

( 1997) ( ci t i ng the comment ary t o U. S. S. G. 6A1. 3 and st at i ng that

t he Supr eme Cour t has "hel d t hat appl i cat i on of t he pr eponder ance

st andar d at sent enci ng gener al l y sat i sf i es due pr ocess" ) .

Put di f f er ent l y, i f t he gover nment i nt ends t o seek an

i ncr ease i n a cr i mi nal def endant ' s sent ence f or conduct t hat

i ndependent l y may be subj ect t o cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y, t he gover nment

shoul d char ge t hat conduct i n t he i ndi ct ment . The Fi f t h Amendment

r equi r es t hat "[ n] o per son shal l be . . . depr i ved of l i f e,

l i ber t y, or pr oper t y, wi t hout due pr ocess of l aw, " U. S. Const .

-18-


19/21

amend. V, whi l e t he Si xt h Amendment provi des an accused wi t h t he

r i ght t o a t r i al "by an i mpar t i al j ur y, " i d. amend. VI . The

pr act i ce of argui ng f or hi gher sent ences based on uncharged and

unt r i ed "r el evant conduct " f or , at best , t angent i al l y r el at ed

nar cot i cs t r ansact i ons seems l i ke an end- r un ar ound t hese basi c

const i t ut i onal guar ant ees af f or ded t o al l cr i mi nal def endant s. Cf .

Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2162 ( "When a f i ndi ng of f act al t er s t he

l egal l y pr escr i bed puni shment so as t o aggr avat e i t , t he f act

necessar i l y f orms a const i t uent part of a new of f ense and must be

submi t t ed t o t he j ur y. " ) . The gover nment ' s r ol e i s t o ensur e

j ust i ce, bot h t o t he accused and t o t he publ i c at l ar ge; i t i s not

t o maxi mi ze convi ct i on r at es and ar gue f or t he gr eat est possi bl e

sent ence. And, whi l e i t i s uncl ear t o me whet her t hi s t r end i s due

t o shaky pol i ce wor k resul t i ng i n cases t hat cannot be pr oven

beyond a r easonabl e doubt , pr osecut or i al l azi ness, or ot her l ess

nef ar i ous f act or s, i t r emai ns t r oubl i ng r egar dl ess.

I amhar dl y t he f i r st t o not i ce or cal l at t ent i on t o t hi s

i nj ust i ce, and I amsur e I wi l l not be t he l ast . See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Ri t sema, 31 F. 3d 559, 567 ( 7t h Ci r . 1994) ( "Our poi nt i s

onl y that t he r el evant conduct pr ovi si on, i nt er pr et ed i n an over l y

br oad manner , has t he potent i al of bei ng a coarse i nst r ument

capabl e of causi ng year s of ser i ous i nci dent al cri mi nal i t y t o r i de

i n at sent enci ng on t he coat t ai l s of a r el at i vel y mi nor

convi ct i on. " ) ; Susan N. Herman, The Tai l t hat Wagged t he Dog:

-19-


20/21

Bi f ur cat ed Fact - Fi ndi ng Under t he Feder al Sent enci ng Gui del i nes and

t he Li mi t s of Due Pr ocess, 66 S. Cal . L. Rev. 289, 292 ( 1992)

( "Thi s syst em al so i mposes st r i ct pr ocedur al obl i gat i ons on

pr osecut ors who wi sh to charge a def endant wi t h a part i cul ar cr i me,

but t hen pr ovi des t hem wi t h a shor t cut al t er nat i ve means of havi ng

a def endant puni shed f or an addi t i onal of f ense t hat t hey mi ght not

have been abl e t o pr ove beyond a r easonabl e doubt , so l ong as t he

def endant has been convi ct ed of a r el at ed of f ense. " ) . 5

Never t hel ess, as a j udge, i t i s my r esponsi bi l i t y t o

f ai t hf ul l y appl y t he l aw as ar t i cul at ed by bot h t he Supr eme Cour t

and t hi s cour t , and I do not di sput e t hat bot h t he Gui del i nes and

our i nt er pr et at i on of t hem cur r ent l y condone t hi s quest i onabl e

5 See al so Uni t ed St at es v. Ki kumur a, 918 F. 2d 1084, 1119- 21( 3d Ci r . 1990) ( Rosenn, J . , concur r i ng) ( expr essi ng "concer n t hatt he Gover nment ' s mani pul at i on of [ t he def endant ' s] charge and

sent enci ng i l l ust r at es t he pr obl emr epor t ed by many cour t s t hat t hesent enci ng gui del i nes have repl aced j udi ci al di scret i on oversent enci ng wi t h pr osecut or i al di scr et i on, " whi ch may vi ol at e adef endant ' s r i ght t o due pr ocess by al l owi ng t he gover nment t o"del i ber at el y col l at er al i ze at t he char ge and t r i al st age t he mostcr i t i cal el ement f or [ a def endant ' s] sent enci ng") , over r ul ed byUni t ed St at es v. Fi sher , 502 F. 3d 293 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) ; Fed. Cr i m.Procedur e Comm. of t he Am. Col l . of Tr i al Lawyer s, The Amer i canCol l ege of Tr i al Lawyer s Pr oposed Modi f i cat i ons t o t he Rel evantConduct Provi si ons of t he Uni t ed St at es Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, 38Am. Cr i m. L. Rev. 1463, 1465 ( 2001) ( " [ T] he Commi t t ee asser t s t hatdef endant s who are charged and convi ct ed of part i cul ar cr i mi nal

of f enses shoul d have t hei r sent ences pr i mar i l y based upon t hoseof f enses, not of f enses whi ch t he pr osecut or has el ect ed not t ocharge or t r y to a j udge or j ur y or of whi ch t hey have beenacqui t t ed. ") ; i d. at 1484 & n. 150 ( col l ect i ng cases i n whi ch" j udges have r ecogni zed t hat . . . t he oper at i on of t he r el evantconduct r ul es i s unj ust f r omt he per spect i ve of an or di nar y ci t i zenand t her ef or e i nvi t es di sr espect f or t he l aw") .

-20-


21/21

pr ocess. See Wi t t e, 515 U. S. at 396, 406 ( f i ndi ng no

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on wher e t he sent ence was based i n par t on a

cocai ne of f ense t hat def endant "cl ear l y was nei t her pr osecut ed f or

nor convi ct ed of " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Lombar d, 102 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st

Ci r . 1996) ( f i ndi ng no const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on wher e t he di st r i ct

cour t "choose[ s] t o gi ve wei ght t o t he unchar ged of f enses i n f i xi ng

t he sent ence wi t hi n t he st at ut or y r ange i f i t f i nds by a

pr eponder ance of evi dence t hat t hey occur r ed" ) . I nonet hel ess

quest i on whet her t hi s i nt er pr et at i on shoul d be r evi si t ed - - ei t her

by t he cour t s or by r evi si ons t o t he Gui del i nes.

-21-

Documents

United States v. St. Hill, 1st Cir. (2014)