U.S. v. Howard, 90-8123
| Decision Date | 19 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-8123,90-8123 |
| Citation | 923 F.2d 1500 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ed HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Michael J. Trost, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellant.
Robert L. Barr, Jr., U.S. Atty., Craig A. Gillen, David Wright, Asst. U.S. Attys., Wilmer Parker, III, U.S. Atty's Office, S.E. Drug Task Force, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before FAY and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
This case presents three questions concerning application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant-appellant Ed Howard pled guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute. Following Howard's initial arrest for possession of two kilograms of cocaine, he agreed to cooperate with law enforcement officials by providing information concerning the ultimate destination of the cocaine found in his possession. Ultimately, Howard's cooperation with law enforcement officials resulted in the arrest of six other individuals, and in the recovery of approximately two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in cash and property, along with several weapons. Howard challenges the district court's application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines on three grounds. First, Howard maintains that the district court erred in increasing his base offense level by three levels, under section 3B1.1 of the Guidelines, because he played an aggravating role in the offense. Second, Howard asserts that the district court erroneously increased his offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice, under section 3C1.1 of the Guidelines, for making allegedly false statements to a probation officer. And finally, Howard contends that the district court improperly denied him a two level decrease, under section 3E1.1 of the Guidelines, for acceptance of responsibility. Because we must defer to the factual findings of the district court in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court to increase Howard's offense level by three levels for his aggravating role in the offense. Because we find that the district court erred in its interpretation of the Guidelines with respect to Howard's alleged obstruction of justice, we REVERSE the two level increase under section 3C1.1 of the Guidelines. And because we conclude that the district court's refusal to award Howard a two level decrease for acceptance of responsibility was clearly erroneous, we REVERSE its application of section 3E1.1 of the Guidelines and REMAND for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
Defendant-appellant Ed Howard pled guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess two kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute, under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). Howard and a co-defendant 1 were stopped by officers of the Georgia State Patrol on March 23, 1989, while traveling north on I-75 in Houston County, Georgia. The officers obtained consent from Howard to search the vehicle and subsequently recovered two kilograms of cocaine hidden in the trunk area. Howard and the co-defendant were arrested and taken first to the Houston County Jail where they were questioned by state and county police officers. Howard agreed to cooperate by providing information concerning the ultimate destination of the cocaine found in his possession. He informed Georgia State Patrol Officers that the cocaine was to be delivered to Eric Hall, in Decatur, Georgia, that evening.
Later on the same day, Howard was taken to the Atlanta office of the Drug Enforcement Administration, where he was further questioned by DEA agents. In response to the agents' questions, Howard revealed that he had made several trips to Atlanta in the past to deliver cocaine to Eric Hall. Howard was then instructed to contact Hall to arrange for delivery of the cocaine found in Howard's possession. Under the supervision of DEA agents, Howard met with Hall at a pre-arranged location for delivery of the cocaine and Hall was placed under arrest. Subsequent to his arrest, Hall then provided information to DEA agents which resulted in the arrest and indictment of five other individuals on drug related charges. Ultimately, Howard's cooperation with law enforcement officials resulted in the arrest of Hall and five others, as well as the recovery of several weapons and two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in cash and property from Hall's residence.
When Hall was questioned by DEA agents, he indicated that he had purchased cocaine from Howard on several occasions. Hall stated that on each occasion, Howard provided him with cocaine without requiring immediate payment upon delivery. Howard then accompanied Hall to the location where Hall sold the cocaine to a third party, and upon completion of the sale, Hall then turned the money over to Howard in payment for the cocaine.
Howard was interviewed by a probation officer on September 28, 1989, for the preparation of a presentence report. There is some disagreement between the probation officer and Howard concerning the questions asked and the answers given during the course of that interview. The probation officer stated that Howard was asked whether the instant offense was his only transportation of cocaine from Florida to Georgia. Howard allegedly responded that other than one other occasion three years earlier when he was arrested for possession of cocaine, this was the only instance of his transporting cocaine. This statement, according to the probation officer, was in direct contradiction to the statement Howard gave to DEA agents immediately following his arrest, where he admitted that he had made several trips to Atlanta in the past to deliver cocaine to Eric Hall.
Howard, on the other hand, claims that he was only asked to provide information about the instant offense and about prior convictions. He was not specifically asked whether he delivered drugs to Eric Hall on previous occasions, or whether he had possessed or delivered drugs on occasions in which he was not arrested. Because he provided information to the best of his recollection in response to the questions asked, Howard maintains that he did not provide the probation officer with a material falsehood during the presentence interview.
The probation officer's presentence report made three recommendations which the sentencing court adopted and which are at issue here. First, the report recommended a three-level increase in Howard's base offense level because he played an aggravating role in the offense as a manager or supervisor, and the criminal activity involved five or more participants. Second, the report suggested a two-level increase in Howard's offense level for obstruction of justice because he provided the probation officer with a material falsehood during a presentence interview. And finally, the report stated that Howard should not receive a two-level reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility, based upon his failure to acknowledge, during the presentence interview, the extent of his prior drug involvement with Eric Hall.
A court of appeals may review a sentence imposed by a district court under the United States Sentencing Guidelines to determine, inter alia, whether it was "imposed in violation of law," or "as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines." See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(e)(1), (2) (1988). When reviewing a sentence imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines, the court of appeals must "give due regard to the opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and shall accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and shall give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(e)(4) (1988); see United States v. Marin, 916 F.2d 1536, 1537-38 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam).
Appellant Howard first contends that the district court erred in increasing his offense level by three levels, under section 3B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, 2 for his managerial role in the offense. Howard maintains that the fact that he "fronted" cocaine to Eric Hall, who in turn sold the drug and turned the money over to Howard in payment for the cocaine, is not indicative of control or supervision by Howard over Hall's drug transactions. The district court determined, to the contrary, that Howard served as the capitalist in his dealings with Eric Hall, insofar as he extended credit to Hall in the form of cocaine, and that this extension of credit afforded Howard significant control over Hall.
This circuit has interpreted the Sentencing Guidelines to " 'contemplate that the government has the burden of proving the applicability of sections which would enhance the offense level.' " United States v. Markovic, 911 F.2d 613, 616 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1356 (11th Cir.1989)). Notwithstanding this burden of proof, the district court's determination of a defendant's role in a crime is a finding of fact to which the clearly erroneous test applies. United States v. Castillo-Valencia, 917 F.2d 494, 501-02 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Forbes, 888 F.2d 752, 754 (11th Cir.1989). Thus, we cannot overturn the factual conclusions of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous.
The district court's finding that Howard exercised a managerial role in the offense of which he was convicted was based upon the fact that Howard fronted cocaine to Eric Hall. The court noted that but for the credit that Howard was willing to extend to Hall, Hall would have been unable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Beckley
...States v. Voss, 956 F.2d 1007, 1011 (10th Cir.1992) (citing majority of cases applying clarifying commentary); United States v. Howard, 923 F.2d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir.1991) (considering clarifying amendment to commentary); United States v. Rodriguez, 942 F.2d 899, 902 (5th Cir.1991) (clarify......
-
U.S. v. Chandler
...10,000 marijuana plants. We review the district court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Howard, 923 F.2d 1500, 1503 (11th Cir.1991). During the trial, witnesses testified that Chandler planted several thousand marijuana plants. A notebook seized from ......
-
U.S. v. Alpert
...because they were less severe. As a reviewing court, however, we may consider subsequent clarifying commentary. United States v. Howard, 923 F.2d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir.1991). Indeed, the majority concedes that none of the exceptions in Stinson v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct.......
-
U.S. v. Magluta
...determinations are reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Taylor, 88 F.3d 938, 942 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Howard, 923 F.2d 1500, 1503 (11th Cir.1991). Lastly, the district court's decision to depart from the applicable sentencing guideline range is reviewed for abuse of d......
-
Federal Sentencing Guidelines - Rosemary T. Cakmis
...50. Id. at 908-09. 51. Id. at 908 (citing, e.g., United States v. Anderton, 136 F.3d 747, 751 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Howard, 923 F.2d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Marin, 916 F.2d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1990); United States v. Scroggins, 880 F.2d 1204, 1215 (11th ......
-
Federal Sentencing Guidelines - Andrea Wilson
...378. 98. U.S.S.G. amend. 187 (1993). 99. 40 F.3d 349 (11th Cir. 1994). 100. Id. at 351. 101. Id. at 354 (citing United States v. Howard 923 F.2d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir. 1991)). The appellate court will consider intervening clarifying amendments even though they were not in effect at the time ......
-
Federal Sentencing Guidelines - James T. Skuthan and Rosemary T. Cakmis
...18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2252(a)). 72. Id. at 750 (citing U.S.S.G. Sec. 2G2.2(b)(4)). 73. Id. 74. Id. at 751 (quoting United States v. Howard, 923 F.2d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Marin, 916 F.2d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1990))). 75. 146 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 1998). 76. Id. at......