United States v. Lawrence

• Citation: 854 F.3d 462
• Decision Date: 14 April 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16-2056,16-2056
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin Thomas LAWRENCE, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

854 F.3d 462

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.Martin Thomas LAWRENCE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-2056

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: January 13, 2017

Filed: April 14, 2017

Counsel who represented the appellant was Wallace L. Taylor of Cedar Rapids, IA.

Counsel who represented the appellee was Lisa C. Williams, AUSA, of Cedar Rapids, IA.

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

A jury found Martin Lawrence guilty of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and attempt to obstruct justice. The district court¹ sentenced Lawrence to 300 months' imprisonment. Lawrence appeals, arguing the district court improperly calculated the drug quantity attributable to him.² We affirm.

I.

In July 2015, Lawrence was indicted for conspiracy to distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and 50 grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846 ; and possession with intent to distribute at least five grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). In October 2015, the Government filed a superseding indictment, adding a charge for attempt to obstruct justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(1), 1512(b)(2)(A), and 1512(b)(2)(C). Lawrence proceeded to trial and a jury returned a guilty verdict on all three charges.

At trial, the Government presented testimony regarding the drug quantity attributable to Lawrence, including testimony from coconspirators and from law enforcement officers involved in the investigation. Testimony from officers described a number of controlled buys from Lawrence and Kevin Ridler, a coconspirator. During a controlled buy on October 1, 2013, Ridler sold 2.54 grams of actual methamphetamine. During two controlled buys, on October 13 and October 24, 2014, Lawrence sold 25.98 grams of actual methamphetamine and 36.45 grams of actual methamphetamine, respectively. Additionally, on October 11, 2013, officers executed a search warrant at Ridler's residence and seized 28 grams of methamphetamine mixture.

Officers also testified regarding methamphetamine seized from Troy Lawrence, another coconspirator. On July 12, 2014, Troy Lawrence was stopped for a traffic violation and officers seized 6.56 grams of ice methamphetamine. On September 12, 2014, Troy Lawrence was involved in a traffic accident. Because the vehicle did not have insurance, officers impounded the car and, during an inventory search, found 23.29 grams of actual methamphetamine and 4.83 grams of methamphetamine mixture.

Finally, officers testified regarding a traffic stop of Mark Fuehrer, a third coconspirator, on January 11, 2015. During the traffic stop, officers seized 25.58 grams of actual methamphetamine.

Ridler also testified at trial. Ridler had participated with law enforcement in the controlled buys from Lawrence. Ridler described his past drug use and his relationship with Lawrence. Specifically, Ridler testified he obtained ice methamphetamine from Lawrence for three to four years. Ridler testified he bought ice methamphetamine from Lawrence at least 20 to 35 times, beginning with smaller quantities of a gram or two and increasing to as much as one ounce at a time. Ridler stated that he distributed ice methamphetamine for one and a half to two years and regularly used 0.5 to one gram per day during that period.

Finally, Carrie Maskewit, Troy Lawrence's girlfriend, also testified at trial. Maskewit testified that Lawrence was Troy Lawrence's supplier for ice methamphetamine. Maskewit stated that Lawrence obtained methamphetamine from "Rusty" in Omaha, Nebraska. Maskewit also stated that she had observed Lawrence with half-full gallon-sized plastic Ziploc bags of ice methamphetamine. An investigator later testified that this was consistent with a pound of ice methamphetamine.

Following Lawrence's conviction, the district court held two sentencing hearings. At the first hearing, on January 14, 2016, the court heard testimony from Daniel Grother, who had known Lawrence for a number of years and had bought a gram of methamphetamine from Lawrence on approximately six occasions. Grother testified that he had traveled with Lawrence to Omaha at least ten times in March and April 2015. During those trips, Grother stated, Lawrence would stop at Rusty's home, where Grother observed drug activity between Lawrence and Rusty. Grother testified that over the course of those trips, he believed he observed Lawrence in possession of three to four pounds of ice methamphetamine.

Based on Grother's testimony, the PSR attributed 1.3608 kilograms of methamphetamine to Lawrence. The PSR also attributed 424.4 grams of marijuana to Lawrence, based on marijuana seized during a search of Lawrence's home on January 27, 2015. Finally, the PSR attributed 42.52 grams of cocaine base to Lawrence, based on a report to law enforcement by a man to whom Lawrence had sold that cocaine base. The PSR attributed a total of 27,368.26 kilograms of marijuana equivalency to Lawrence, resulting in a base offense level of 34. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(c)(3). The PSR also added a two-level enhancement based on evidence that Lawrence had attempted to obstruct justice by persuading his girlfriend to avoid being subpoenaed. Based on a total offense level of 36 and a criminal history category of IV, the advisory guidelines sentencing range was 262–327 months' imprisonment.

The Government also calculated a total offense level of 36 but was more conservative in its drug-quantity calculation. Noting concerns regarding Grother's credibility, the Government attributed to Lawrence only one pound of ice methamphetamine based on Grother's testimony. The Government calculated a total drug quantity attributable to Lawrence of 23,969.28 kilograms of marijuana equivalency. In addition to the pound of ice methamphetamine based on Grother's testimony, this calculation relied on the drugs seized during controlled buys from Ridler and Lawrence, the search of Ridler's home, the traffic stop and accident involving Troy Lawrence, the traffic stop of Mark Fuehrer, the search of Lawrence's home, and the trial testimony of Ridler and Maskewit.

At the second sentencing hearing, on April 14, 2016, the district court accepted the Government's drug-quantity calculation. Lawrence made a number of objections at the hearing, including generalized objections to the scoring of drug quantity in the PSR, reliance on Grother's testimony in the drug-quantity calculation, and reliance on drugs seized outside the time frame of the conspiracy. Over Lawrence's objections, the court found that the Government had met its burden of establishing drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. The court noted that the findings would be the same even if Lawrence's objections to the PSR were sustained. The court also noted the credibility concerns regarding Grother but concluded that, though Grother's testimony may have been embellished in some respects, it was generally credible. Specifically, the court explained that credibility concerns were adequately addressed by the Government's calculation, which included only one pound of ice methamphetamine based on Grother's testimony rather than the three or four pounds to which he testified.

The court sentenced Lawrence to 300 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, 300 months' imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and 240 months' imprisonment for attempt to obstruct justice, all to run concurrently. Lawrence appeals, arguing the court made three errors at sentencing: (1) relying on objected-to facts in the PSR; (2) considering drug quantity from acts after the end of the conspiracy; and (3) attributing any quantity of drugs to Lawrence based on Grother's testimony.

II.

We review de novo the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Miller , 511 F.3d 821, 823 (8th Cir. 2008). "The district court's drug quantity and identity determinations are factual findings, which we review ‘for clear error, applying the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.’ " United States v. Walker , 688 F.3d 416, 420 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Turner , 603 F.3d 468, 471 (8th Cir. 2010) ). "The district court's ‘factual determinations will stand unless the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, is based on an erroneous view of the applicable law, or in light of the entire record, we are left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.’ " Id. at 420–21 (quoting Miller , 511 F.3d at 823 ).

A.

Lawrence argues the district court relied on objected-to facts in the PSR. Specifically, Lawrence argues the only evidence introduced at sentencing was Grother's testimony. Beyond that, Lawrence contends, the court relied on statements in the PSR.

"Sentencing courts have ‘wide discretion at sentencing as to the kind of information considered or its source.’ " United States v. Rodriguez-Ramos , 663 F.3d 356, 364 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Pratt , 553 F.3d 1165, 1170 (8th Cir. 2009) ). Information the court can consider at sentencing includes evidence produced at trial. See United States v. Wintermute , 443 F.3d 993, 1005 (8th Cir. 2006). The court cannot, however, rely on objected-to facts contained in a PSR. See id.

In this case, the district court did not rely on objected-to facts in the PSR. Rather, acknowledging those objections, the court stated:

I'm going to overrule all of the—actually, all of the objections by the defense with regard to drug quantity. Some of the objections I don't think preserve anything because they're general. Other objections, even if I were to sustain them—but I didn't find a basis to sustain any of the objections—would have no impact on drug quantity, and those that would have an impact on drug

...