United States v. Helding

• Citation: 948 F.3d 864
• Decision Date: 28 January 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-3270,18-3270
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel J. HELDING, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

948 F.3d 864

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Joel J. HELDING, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-3270

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued November 7, 2019

Decided January 28, 2020

Robert A. Anderson, Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark P. Maciolek, Attorney, MURPHY & DESMOND S.C., Madison, WI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Hamilton, Scudder, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.

Scudder, Circuit Judge.

Police seized 143.7 kilograms of marijuana from Joel Helding’s car and apartment, and he pleaded guilty to possessing over 100 kilograms. But at sentencing, the district court held him responsible for the equivalent of 4,679.7 kilograms—over 32 times the amount seized. The additional quantity was based solely on the Presentence Investigation Report’s account that confidential informants told law enforcement Helding was dealing significant quantities of methamphetamine during the relevant period. The drug quantity determination had a sizeable effect on Helding’s advisory guidelines range, and it drove his ultimate sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment.

A sentencing court acts within its discretion when it credits confidential informants’ statements about drug quantity, but when a defendant objects, the evidence supporting that quantity must be found to be reliable. While that step may prove modest, it needs to be taken, lest a defendant face the risk of being sentenced on the basis of unreliable information. The statements here, without more, fell short of that threshold. So we reverse and remand for resentencing.

I

A

In January 2018, a confidential informant told Wisconsin law enforcement that Joel Helding and his now-wife, Valerie Flores, planned to drive a substantial amount of methamphetamine from California to Wisconsin. Law enforcement used the informant’s tip to obtain a court order to track Flores’s phone and thereby monitor the pair’s location as they drove. Once Helding and Flores arrived in Wisconsin, state police stopped and apprehended them. The officers then seized 143.7 kilograms of marijuana from Helding’s car, while also finding him in possession of two firearms, a 9mm Smith & Wesson and a Ruger LCP .380. A subsequent search of his apartment, undertaken pursuant to a warrant, further uncovered 15.2 grams of marijuana and digital scales containing methamphetamine residue.

A grand jury charged Helding with possessing and intending to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Helding pleaded guilty to both counts, which subjected him to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment—ten for the drug offense and five consecutive for firearm possession.

B

Under the Sentencing Guidelines, quantities matter in drug cases. The higher the quantity of drugs attributed to the defendant, the higher his offense level, and in turn the higher his sentencing range. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Helding’s case provides a stark illustration.

The U.S. Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (often shorthanded PSR) in advance of sentencing. In determining drug quantity, the PSR recommended holding Helding accountable for not only the 143.7 kilograms of marijuana that police found in his car and apartment, but also additional quantities based on an application of the relevant conduct rule in the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (explaining that for guidelines purposes, where a defendant jointly undertakes criminal activity, the relevant conduct includes all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions within the scope of and in furtherance of the crime). The application of that rule here meant that the drug quantity determination needed to account for Helding’s dealing of both marijuana and methamphetamine.

Methamphetamine quantities entered the PSR through information provided to law enforcement by five confidential sources (and presumably passed to the probation officer by the prosecutor or case agent). According to the PSR, the confidential informants, or CIs, stated that they bought methamphetamine from Helding several times and relayed information on the quantities, prices, and frequency of those transactions. The PSR reported that CI-1 told law enforcement Helding possessed "over a pound" of methamphetamine on December 16, 2017, and had fronted the informant with a couple of ounces every day or two for two months. CI-1 sold the methamphetamine to others, returned a portion of the proceeds to Helding, and kept the balance as profit. The PSR likewise attributed to CI-1 descriptions of Helding’s vehicles and apartment as well as information that Helding supplied methamphetamine to customers in Merrill and Wausau, Wisconsin. In much the same way, the PSR included information from CI-2—specifically, that this individual saw Helding sell "multiple ounces" of methamphetamine on three occasions for $500 per ounce.

So, too, did the PSR include information from three other confidential sources. One of them, CI-1082, was the informant who originally told law enforcement about Helding’s trip from California to Wisconsin under the mistaken belief that Helding and Flores were transporting methamphetamine instead of marijuana. The PSR also quoted CI-3 as telling law enforcement that Helding once traded a half-ounce of methamphetamine for a gun. And the PSR quoted CI-987 as saying that Flores regularly sold the informant methamphetamine for $40 to $60 per eighth of an ounce.

From this information the probation officer estimated that Helding possessed and intended to distribute at least 64 ounces of methamphetamine during the relevant period. Where a defendant’s conduct involves both marijuana and other drugs, the Sentencing Guidelines convert those drugs into a marijuana equivalency for drug quantity purposes. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. 7, 8(B). So, in preparing the PSR here, the probation officer converted the methamphetamine and added it to the 143.7 kilograms of seized marijuana. Helding’s drug quantity shot up to 4,679.7 kilograms of marijuana.

Helding’s advisory sentencing range likewise jumped through the roof. If he had been responsible for just the 143.7 kilograms of marijuana seized, his offense level would have been 26 and his sentencing range 120 to 150 months for the drug offense. Add to that the five-year minimum he faced for the gun offense, and Helding’s total range would have been 180 to 210 months. But when the drug quantity skyrocketed to 4,679.7 kilograms of marijuana, Helding’s offense level increased to 32 and his sentencing range to 210 to 262 months. Adding the five years for the firearm offense, Helding’s total range became 270 to 322 months. Put most simply, the spike in drug quantity increased the advisory range by over seven years.

This table shows the impact:

                Drug Offense Sentencing Total Sentencing
                Quantity Level Range for Range for Drug
                Drug Offense and Firearm
                Alone Offenses
                Seized                143.7 kg    26       120 to 150    180 to 210
                  Quantity Only         marijuana            months        months
                  Seized Quantity       4,679.7 kg  32       210 to 262    270 to 322
                  Plus Relevant         marijuana            months        months
                  Conduct Quantity
                

Helding objected to the PSR’s inclusion of the methamphetamine, arguing that nothing corroborated what the CIs reportedly told law enforcement. Nor, he added, did the PSR include any explanation of why law enforcement found the CI information credible. Helding’s objection was clear: the case involved no controlled buys with any CI, and the search of his apartment revealed only residual amounts of methamphetamine consistent with personal use.

Helding was right that the PSR said nothing about the reliability of the informants. Nowhere was there any description of their past work with law enforcement, their criminal history, the reliability of the accounts they had provided before, or whether and why the case agents believed the information provided to the probation office was reliable.

The probation office rejected Helding’s objection in an addendum to the PSR. The addendum explained that the probation office did not have the means or the responsibility to investigate witness credibility. It stated that only CI-1 and CI-2’s statements factored directly into the drug quantity calculation, because those statements were detailed enough to include the dates and quantities of Helding’s alleged methamphetamine sales. On the basis of this information, the PSR calculated Helding’s advisory range based upon a drug quantity of 4,679.7 kilograms of marijuana—an amount the probation officer saw as "conservative" in light of the accounts of CI-1 and CI-2 supplied by law enforcement. In the end, however, the addendum observed that the drug quantity finding would have no impact on the guidelines calculation because of Helding’s status as a career offender.

C

Sentencing began with the district court determining Helding’s advisory guidelines range. Helding again objected to the PSR’s inclusion of methamphetamine in the drug quantity determination, disputing the accuracy of the CI-supplied information about his methamphetamine sales. The district court overruled the objection, finding that the government had shown Helding’s possession of methamphetamine by a preponderance of the evidence. The court reasoned this way:

Indeed, as to the quantities, both confidential informants were able to provide specific information related to the defendant’s involvement in sales of drugs, including dates and quantities. Absent contrary evidence, therefore, I overrule that objection.

The sentencing judge also observed that three other CIs had provided information regarding Helding’s possession of methamphetamine, even though their accounts did not directly factor into the drug quantity calculation.

The district court turned next to Helding’s criminal history and found that his...