U.S. v. Singleton

Decision Date25 September 1997
Docket Number96-3958,Nos. 96-3404,96-3425,s. 96-3404
Citation125 F.3d 1097
Parties47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1128 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry F. SINGLETON, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony D. SINGLETON, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demitress Sanchez COX, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Robert Lee Garrison (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Criminal Division, Fairview Heights, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Renee E. Schooley, Lawrence J. Fleming (argued), Office of the Federal Public Defender, East St. Louis, IL, for Larry F. Singleton.

Daniel R. Schattnik, Unsell, Unsell & Schattnik, East Alton, IL, for Anthony D. Singleton.

Robert L. Elovitz (argued), Edwardsville, IL, for Demitress Sanchez Cox.

Before POSNER, Chief Judge, BAUER, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge.

Larry Singleton, Anthony Singleton, and Demitress Cox were convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Anthony Singleton and Demitress Cox appeal, contending that the district court erred when it denied their motion to suppress, when it allowed the jury to hear tape recordings made by a confidential informant who was unavailable at trial, when it calculated the amount of drugs attributable to each of them, and when it enhanced each of their sentences for possession of a firearm in connection with their drug distribution. Finding their contentions without merit, we affirm.

On July 18, 1995, Detective Scott Waldrup from the Alton Police Department met with Larry Northcutt, a felon on furlough from jail. Northcutt told Detective Waldrup that he recently had spoken with Anthony Singleton and Cox and that they had agreed to sell him crack cocaine. He stated that he knew both of them, that they had sold him drugs several times in the past, and that he had seen Cox with drugs about a week before. Northcutt explained how he knew the two men; he began buying drugs from Anthony Singleton in late 1993 and continued buying from him through early 1994. Northcutt also stated that he had bought crack cocaine from Larry Singleton, Anthony's uncle, and that Anthony Singleton and Cox were Larry's suppliers.

The police then obtained a petition to eavesdrop and put a hidden recording device on Northcutt. According to Detective Al Adams, on July 21, 1995, police sent Northcutt to purchase two packets of crack cocaine, each containing one-sixteenth of an ounce, from Anthony Singleton or Cox at 2931 Edgewood, where the two men lived. Northcutt met Cox and Anthony Singleton there, but he did not buy any drugs there. He was instead instructed by the two men to go to Larry Singleton's Alton residence and have Larry contact Cox and Anthony Singleton. Northcutt went to Larry Singleton's house and relayed the message to him. Larry did not have a phone in his home, so he told Northcutt to come back in about fifteen minutes. Larry then went to an Alton residence located near the corner of Main and Powhattan Streets to call Anthony and Cox as he had been instructed. Less than five minutes after Larry Singleton entered this residence and made the call, Cox left his house and drove to the intersection of Main and Powhattan. When Cox arrived, Larry got in Cox's car and Cox dropped Larry off at Larry's home. Cox then headed back to his Edgewood residence. Northcutt purchased crack cocaine from Larry Singleton in Larry's backyard. Larry told Northcutt that Anthony Singleton and Cox did not want dealing at the Edgewood residence. 1 Northcutt later turned the cocaine over the Alton police. The two packages tested positive for cocaine.

On two different occasions on July 26, Northcutt set out to buy drugs from Anthony Singleton or Cox at the Edgewood residence, but did not get drugs at that location. On July 27, in addition to Northcutt, police placed a hidden recording device on another confidential informant, John Yarborough. Yarborough was also unsuccessful in his attempt to buy drugs at the Edgewood residence.

On July 28, Northcutt again set out to buy drugs from Anthony Singleton or Cox at the Edgewood residence. Northcutt paged Anthony Singleton. When Anthony returned the page, Northcutt told him that he wanted to buy a couple of "sixteenths." Anthony told Northcutt to go to the Edgewood residence. Alton police tape-recorded this conversation. Once Northcutt met Anthony at his Edgewood home, Anthony told Northcutt to go to Larry's residence and return with him. Northcutt did as he was told and returned to the Edgewood residence with Larry Singleton. Northcutt paid Larry for crack cocaine with $200, which the Alton police had previously photocopied. Police were conducting close surveillance of the Edgewood residence on that day. On Anthony Singleton's front porch, Larry handed Anthony $200, and Anthony handed Larry an unknown item. Detective Al Adams and Northcutt witnessed the exchange. Larry handed Northcutt the drugs as they drove down the block and again explained that Anthony had instructed him not to hand over the crack in front of Anthony's home. Northcutt turned the drugs over to the Alton police.

On July 28, 1995, Detective Al Adams filed a complaint for a search warrant with an accompanying affidavit for the Edgewood residence. The affidavit described Northcutt's cocaine purchases on July 21 and July 28. A magistrate found that probable cause existed and issued the search warrant. A team of officers executed the warrant on that same day. Inside the Edgewood residence, the police found Anthony Singleton and Cox sitting on top of Anthony's bed near a bag of firearm ammunition. Police recovered crack cocaine, six firearms, and additional ammunition. From Anthony Singleton's pocket, police recovered the $200 which Northcutt had used to buy cocaine from Larry Singleton. Police also recovered over $800 in cash from Cox's pockets. They found pagers and a $543 phone bill for Cox's cellular phone from the preceding month. Anthony Singleton's mother, Mamie Singleton, and her male companion, Paul Ammonette, and eight other people, including Roderick Singleton, Kela Singleton, and Brandon Singleton were all present when the search was executed.

On August 23, 1995, in the Southern District of Illinois, Demitress Cox, Larry Singleton, Anthony Singleton, and Louis Lacey 2 were charged by indictment with conspiracy to distribute and distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count I). Counts II and III charged Cox with distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Counts III and VI charged Anthony Singleton with distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Counts IV, V, and VI charged Larry Singleton with distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

On March 4, 1996, Larry Singleton pleaded guilty to all of the counts against him. On July 3, 1996, a jury found Anthony Singleton and Cox guilty on all counts. On September 16, 1996, the district court sentenced Larry Singleton to 210 months on each of Counts I, IV, V, and VI, to be served concurrently. On October 8, 1996, the district court entered an amended order and judgment against Anthony Singleton. The court sentenced him to 360 months imprisonment on Count I and 240 months imprisonment on each of Counts III and VI, all to run concurrently. On November 13, 1996, the district court also sentenced Cox to 360 months imprisonment on Count I and 240 months imprisonment on each of Counts III and VI, all to run concurrently.

On appeal, Cox and Anthony Singleton argue that: (1) the district court erred in denying their motion to suppress evidence seized from the search because there was no probable cause to search the Edgewood residence; (2) the district court violated the defendants' right to confront and cross-examine an unavailable confidential informant, John Yarborough, when it permitted the jury to hear tape recordings of the defendants' conversations with Yarborough and when it allowed the jury to have transcripts of any inaudible portions; and (3) the district court made an incorrect determination as to the defendants' relevant conduct and an erroneous finding that the defendants possessed certain firearms. Finally, all three defendants contend that the district court erred when it sentenced them for dealing in cocaine base because the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the substance involved was crack cocaine. 3

Analysis
A. The Motion to Suppress

On June 24, 1996, Cox and Anthony Singleton filed a motion to suppress evidence seized during the police search of their residence. Following a hearing on the issue, the district court denied their motion. On appeal, Cox and Anthony Singleton argue that there was no probable cause for the warrant because the information contained in the affidavit in support of the warrant did not state that drugs were ever observed at the Edgewood residence. The affidavit also failed to mention that Alton police had attempted to buy drugs at the Edgewood residence on numerous occasions without success. Finally, Anthony Singleton and Cox note that the affidavit failed to mention that there were certain factors about Northcutt which made him an unreliable informant.

We review de novo the district court's determination that probable cause existed to support a search warrant. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, ---- - ----, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1662-63, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 748 (7th Cir.1997). However, we "review findings of historical fact for clear error" and "give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officials." Ornelas, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 cases
  • United States v. Bain
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • February 17, 2015
    ...transaction suggests that Bain might have been using the apartment in connection with his dealing activities. See United States v. Singleton, 125 F.3d 1097, 1102 (7th Cir.1997) (probable cause where an informant “bought cocaine in the vicinity of the Edgewood residence on two separate occas......
  • State v. Ward, 97-2008-CR
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • October 8, 1998
    ...for an issuing magistrate to infer "that evidence of drug dealing is likely to be found where the dealers live." United States v. Singleton, 125 F.3d 1097, 1102 (7th Cir.1997) (citing United States v. Lamon, 930 F.2d 1183, 1188 (7th Cir.1991)); see also United States v. Pitts, 6 F.3d 1366, ......
  • People v. Katt, Docket No. 225632.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • January 25, 2002
    ...regarding whether the challenged statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. United States v. Singleton, 125 F.3d 1097, 1106 (C.A.7, 1997). In admitting D.D.'s statement to Angela Bowman into evidence, the trial court, relying on the factors set forth by the Unite......
  • Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 21, 2019
    ...testimony; (6) the existence of corroborating evidence; and (7) the reasons for the witness's unavailability. United States v. Singleton , 125 F.3d 1097, 1106 (7th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted), cert. denied , 522 U.S. 1098, 118 S.Ct. 898, 139 L.Ed.2d 833 (1998) ; accord 5 WEINSTEIN § 807.0......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • § 35.03 "EQUIVALENT GUARANTEE OF TRUSTWORTHINESS" REQUIREMENT
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Evidence (CAP) Title Chapter 35 Residual Exception
    • Invalid date
    ...district courts wide discretion in the application of FRE 807, whether it be to admit or exclude evidence."); United States v. Singleton, 125 F.3d 1097, 1106 (7th Cir. 1997).[12] United States v. Friedman, 593 F.2d 109, 119 (9th Cir. 1979).[13] See supra § 31.02 (discussing rationale for he......

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