U.S. v. Grover, 06-CR-40-LRR.

Citation486 F.Supp.2d 868
Decision Date01 February 2007
Docket NumberNo. 06-CR-40-LRR.,06-CR-40-LRR.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Travis GROVER, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

Charles J. Williams, U.S. Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.

Christopher A. Clausen, Boliver Law Firm, Marshalltown, IA, Rick Lee Sole, Glasson, Sole, McManus & Pearson, PC, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant.

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

READE, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................871
                  II. RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS ..........................................871
                 III. FACTUAL FINDINGS ....................................................872
                  IV. THREE-STEP PROCESS ..................................................874
                
                V. PRE-DEPARTURE ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES RANGE ..................874
                      A.  Base Offense Level ..............................................874
                      B.  Acceptance of Responsibility ....................................877
                      C.  Criminal History Category .......................................878
                          1.  Prior criminal history ......................................878
                          2.  Criminal history calculation ................................880
                          3.  Conclusion ..................................................882
                      D.  Pre-Departure Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range ..............882
                  VI. UPWARD DEPARTURE PURSUANT TO USSG § 4A1.3 ......................882
                      A.  Seriousness of Defendant's Criminal History .....................883
                      B.  Likelihood that Defendant Will Commit Other Crimes ..............883
                      C.  Extent of Departure .............................................884
                 VII. UPWARD DEPARTURE PURSUANT TO USSG § 5K2.1 OR § 5K2.21 .....885
                      A.  General Principles ..............................................885
                      B.  USSG § 5K2.1 ...............................................886
                          1.  Applicability of Departure ..................................886
                          2.  Extent of Departure .........................................886
                      C.  USSG § 5K2.21 ..............................................888
                VIII. VARIANCE ............................................................888
                      A.  Sentence to be Imposed ..........................................888
                      B.  Alternative Sentences ...........................................889
                  IX. UNDISCHARGED TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT ..................................890
                   X. RESTITUTION .........................................................891
                  XI. CONCLUSION ..........................................................891
                
I. INTRODUCTION

A jury found Defendant Travis Grover guilty of distributing of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He now appears before the court for sentencing.

II. RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On April 6, 2006, the grand jury charged Defendant and Shaun Williams in a one-count Indictment. The Indictment charged that, on or about October 13, 2004, Defendant and Williams knowingly and intentionally distributed and aided and abetted the distribution of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance, to Stan Butterbaugh, resulting in the death of Butterbaugh from the use of the heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).

On May 11, 2006, Williams appeared before a United States magistrate judge and pled guilty to the offense. On May 26, 2006, the undersigned accepted Williams's guilty plea. The court later sentenced Williams to 240 months of imprisonment.1

On May 30 and 31, 2006, Defendant was tried before a jury. On June 1, 2006, the jury found Defendant guilty of distributing heroin or aiding and abetting the distribution of heroin, as charged in the Indictment. Verdict (docket no. 61) at 1. In response to a special interrogatory, however, the jury stated that it was unable to unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Butterbaugh died as a result of Defendant's heroin distribution. Id. at 2.

On October 26, 2006, the United States Probation Office ("USPO") prepared a Presentence Investigation Report ("PSIR"). On October 30, 2006, the USPO revised the PSIR. On November 7, 2006, the government and Defendant filed their respective sentencing memoranda. In their sentencing memoranda, the parties addressed whether the court should depart upward pursuant to USSG § 4A1.3 (Inadequacy of Criminal History Category) and USSG § 5K2.1 (Death).

On December 19, 2006, the court gave the government and Defendant notice that it was considering departing upward pursuant to USSG § 5K2.21 (Dismissed and Uncharged Conduct). See Notice (docket no. 91) at 1. On December 20, 2006, the government filed a supplemental sentencing memorandum, in which it discussed the propriety of such a departure.

On December 22, 2006 and February 1, 2007, the court held a sentencing hearing ("Hearing"). Defendant was personally present and represented by his attorney, Christopher A. Clausen. Assistant United States Attorney Charles J. Williams represented the government. At the Hearing, the court pronounced sentence in a manner consistent with the instant Sentencing Memorandum.

III. FACTUAL FINDINGS

Based on the evidence presented at Defendant's trial, the court finds the government has proven the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:2

During 2003 and 2004, Defendant was a middleman in the heroin trade in Cedar Rapids.3 Defendant helped other persons secure heroin, in exchange for a "free high," that is, a portion of the heroin sold. For example, Defendant twice obtained heroin for Butterbaugh, Jeremy Carstens and Ryan Polanski in 2003 or 2004. On both occasions, the three heroin users paid Defendant for heroin, which he promptly obtained. Defendant then used some of the heroin.

In October of 2004, Polly Greene and Shane Peterson, two long-time paramours and intravenous heroin users, were using heroin at least once a week with Butterbaugh. On October 13, 2004, at about 10:00 or 11:00 a.m., Butterbaugh went to the apartment Greene and Peterson shared in Cedar Rapids. The three addicts decided to buy heroin to use together. After unsuccessfully attempting to buy heroin from other drug dealers, Butterbaugh called Defendant. Defendant told Butterbaugh that Defendant could get them heroin later in the afternoon.

Around 3:00 or 4:00 p.m., Butterbaugh, Peterson and Greene went to Defendant's apartment for the heroin. Greene, who was pregnant, brought her minor daughter with her. In the apartment, Butterbaugh gave Defendant $100. Defendant made some phone calls and then met someone outside in an adjacent parking lot. About five minutes later, Defendant returned to the apartment with some heroin. Butterbaugh, Peterson, Greene, Defendant and Defendant's girlfriend used some of the heroin intravenously. Between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m., Butterbaugh, Peterson, Greene and her daughter left Defendant's apartment,

Later that evening, Butterbaugh called Defendant and asked for more heroin. Butterbaugh and Peterson drove back to Defendant's apartment. Greene and her daughter stayed home.

Around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m., Butterbaugh, Peterson and Defendant met Williams at Williams's apartment in Cedar Rapids.4 Butterbaugh, Peterson and Defendant asked Williams if he could get them some heroin. Williams explained that he had already called his source, a man known as "Black." Williams left the apartment and bought one-half gram of heroin from Black for $50.

When Williams returned to his apartment, Butterbaugh, Peterson and Defendant were waiting in the living room. Williams took Defendant into the kitchen and gave Defendant one-quarter gram of the heroin. The two then went into the living room. Defendant gave Butterbaugh the one-quarter gram of heroin, and Butterbaugh gave Defendant an unknown amount of cash. Defendant gave $20 of the cash to Williams.

As Defendant, Butterbaugh and Peterson left Williams's apartment, Williams told them to "be careful" because the heroin was "pretty good stuff."

When Butterbaugh and Peterson returned to Peterson's and Greene's apartment, they had heroin. Butterbaugh, Peterson and Greene got high in Peterson's bedroom, while Greene's daughter stayed in the living room. Butterbaugh and Peterson also drank beer; Butterbaugh and Peterson had been drinking beer since about noon.

Soon thereafter, Butterbaugh lay himself down on the floor. Peterson and Greene periodically attempted to arouse Butterbaugh without success. About an hour and a half after he fell unconscious, Butterbaugh began to have difficulty breathing. Greene called 9-1-1.

When emergency personnel arrived, they unsuccessfully tried to revive Butterbaugh. They transported Butterbaugh to St. Luke's Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Dr. Ruth Macke, a pathologist, performed an autopsy on Butterbaugh, at the request of the Linn County Medical Examiner, Dr. Donald Linder. Relying, in part, on Dr. Macke's autopsy report, Dr. Linder concluded that the cause of Butterbaugh's death was respiratory arrest due to heroin usage. Dr. Linder noted that a contributing factor in Butterbaugh's death was an enlarged heart.

In sum, the court finds that the government has met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant sold Butterbaugh heroin and that such heroin resulted in his death. Defendant twice sold heroin to Butterbaugh, and such heroin directly and proximately caused Butterbaugh's death.

Where appropriate, the court makes additional factual findings in later portions of the instant Sentencing Memorandum.

IV. THREE-STEP PROCESS

The Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory. United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002 (8th Cir.) (discussing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, 126 S.Ct. 276, 163 L.Ed.2d 246 (2005). They are advisory. Id...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • U.S. v. Papakee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • April 24, 2008
    ...case that recognized that Kikumura was no longer good law. See United States v. Grover, 511 F.3d 779 (8th Cir.), aff'g 486 F.Supp.2d 868, 872 n. 2 (N.D.Iowa 2007) ("Kikumura is no longer good law, insofar as subsequent Supreme Court cases have completely eroded its jurisprudential 5. A find......
  • United States v. Russow
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • March 10, 2015
    ...substance to a friend of his who he knew would inject it into himself with the "pens" Defendant supplied. See United States v. Grover, 486 F. Supp. 2d 868, 887 (N.D. Iowa) aff'd, 511 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2007) ("Simply by selling heroin, Defendant knowingly risked that death or serious injury......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT