United States v. Walker

• Decision Date: 09 August 2012
• Docket Number: Nos. 11–3487,11–3489.,s. 11–3487
• Citation: 688 F.3d 416
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Nicole WALKER, Defendant–Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Bart Hyde, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

688 F.3d 416

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Nicole WALKER, Defendant–Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Bart Hyde, Defendant–Appellant.

Nos. 11–3487, 11–3489.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 18, 2012.

Filed: Aug. 9, 2012.

Eric D. Tindal, argued, Williamsburg, IA, for appellant Walker.

Stephen Arthur Swift, argued, Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellant Hyde.

Lisa C. Williams, USA, argued, Davenport, IA, for appellee.

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MURPHY and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

RILEY, Chief Judge.

Nicole Walker and Bart Hyde each pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). Walker and Hyde appeal their respective sentences, arguing the district court ¹ clearly erred in calculating the drug quantity attributable to each of them. Hyde also argues the district court erred in imposing an obstruction of justice enhancement and failing to reduce Hyde's sentence for acceptance of responsibility. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2004, police officers in Clinton, Iowa, received information from multiple sources that Walker and Hyde were involved in manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine in Clinton. The officers' investigation confirmed Walker and Hyde were responsible for distributing large amounts of anhydrous methamphetamine and what coconspirators described as “ice” ² methamphetamine.

Walker and Hyde were arrested. On August 18, 2010, a grand jury charged Walker and Hyde with conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine from 2003 to 2008, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(A). Both Walker and Hyde pled guilty.

Before sentencing, the United States Probation Office prepared presentence investigation reports (PSRs) recommending the district court attribute to Walker and Hyde 1,222.9 grams of methamphetamine mixture, three grams of actual methamphetamine, and 1,087.6 grams of “ice” methamphetamine—a total of 24,257.8 kilograms of marijuana equivalency.³ Walker and Hyde each objected to references to “ice” methamphetamine in their respective PSRs and to the total drug quantity attributed to them.

The district court conducted a joint sentencing hearing over the course of three days. In its sentencing memorandum, the government argued the total drug quantity attributable to the conspiracy was “at least 724 grams of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine, 142.5 grams of actual methamphetamine, and 182 grams of ‘[i]ce’ methamphetamine,” which resulted in a total marijuana equivalency of 7,938 kilograms of marijuana and a base offense level of 34.

During the hearing, twelve witnesses testified, including lead investigator Sergeant Ronald Hereen, Hyde, and several coconspirators. Walker did not testify but made a proffer statement in which she admitted distributing methamphetamine and “ice” methamphetamine more than fifty times. Walker disclaimed any knowledge of the purity of the “ice” she distributed.

The government's witnesses testified in detail to a large number of drug transactions involving Walker and Hyde. Witnesses described Walker's home as a center of drug activity that included assembling precursors, distributing methamphetamine, and hanging out and getting high.

Testimony from the coconspirators described a large illegal drug operation, with several individuals, including Hyde and Joe Burridge, reselling methamphetamine Walker supplied. Burridge asserted Walker and Hyde both dealt in large quantities of methamphetamine. Burridge testified he purchased a total of 300 to 400 grams of methamphetamine from Walker. Another coconspirator recalled seeing “a lot of” methamphetamine, maybe weighing an estimated 100 to 200 grams, on a plate at Walker's home. Many other witnesses testified to frequent purchases of smaller amounts.

In 2005, Hyde identified an Arizona source for “ice” and began distributing “ice” methamphetamine. Hyde arranged to receive packages of “ice” from Arizona on several occasions and traveled there at least twice to obtain the drug. Burridge estimated he received varying amounts of “ice” from Hyde approximately ten times from the fall of 2005 to the winter of 2006.

Several other witnesses testified they obtained “ice” from Hyde. Walker and Hyde's coconspirators described the “ice” as purer, more potent with a “cleaner high,” better burning, and of higher quality than the anhydrous methamphetamine manufactured in Iowa. The witnesses who obtained “ice” from Walker and Hyde were unaware of the Guidelines definition of “ice” and denied knowing the precise purity of the drugs they purchased.

Burridge testified Walker and Hyde worked together to transport the “ice” from Arizona and distribute it in Clinton. At the hearing, Hyde acknowledged obtaining methamphetamine from Arizona and distributing it in Clinton, but denied any drug involvement with Walker beyond smoking methamphetamine with her. Hyde denied even knowing Burridge.

Hyde also admitted the methamphetamine he obtained from Arizona was “crystal meth,” which the government explained is another term for “ice.” But Hyde, like Walker, could not say how pure the drugs were. Law enforcement officers never intercepted any of the drugs Hyde received from Arizona. Only a small amount of methamphetamine was ever seized from Walker's home during the investigation and no one tested the drug for purity.

At the close of the sentencing hearing, the district court decided “in the process of reviewing ... all of the evidence, the court must conclude that the evidence supports the determination that the total quantity in this case was 7,938 kilograms of marijuana equivalent.” The district court acknowledged “some reservation about the precision of that amount,” but noted the amount “is more than twice [the 3,000 kilograms of marijuana equivalency] necessary in order for this case to come in at a level 34.” In assigning that base-offense level to both Walker and Hyde, the district court stated it was “confident on the record in this case that the lower amount of 3,000 is surpassed.”

The district court also found (1) the Arizona methamphetamine Hyde distributed was “ice,” and (2) Hyde intentionally gave false testimony with respect to the drug quantity involved in the conspiracy and Hyde's knowledge of Burridge. Because Hyde was not truthful, the district court assessed a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice and refused to make a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.

On November 7, 2011, the district court sentenced Walker to 120 months imprisonment (level 31, category I) and sentenced Hyde to 235 months imprisonment (level 36, category III). Walker and Hyde appeal their sentences.

II. DISCUSSIONA. Drug Quantity

Walker and Hyde contend the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity attributable to each of them under the advisory Guidelines. “We review the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines de novo.” 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. Turner, 603 F.3d 468, 471 (8th Cir.2010); see also United States v. Maxwell, 25 F.3d 1389, 1397 (8th Cir.1994). 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.’ ” Miller, 511 F.3d at 823 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez–Hernandez, 353 F.3d 632, 635 (8th Cir.2003)).

1. Scope of the Conspiracy

Walker and Hyde argue the district court relied on unreliable evidence and applied an overly broad definition of conspiracy. Specifically, Walker and Hyde deny being involved in the same conspiracy and challenge Burridge's testimony regarding the relationship between Walker and Hyde and the quantities of drugs Burridge bought from them. Walker's and Hyde's arguments are unavailing.

“The elements of a drug conspiracy are that two or more persons reached an agreement to distribute or possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally joined the agreement, and that at the time that he joined the agreement, he knew its essential purpose.” United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir.2007). “[T]o be guilty of a single conspiracy, the conspirators need not know each other or be privy to the details of each enterprise comprising the conspiracy as long as the evidence is sufficient to show that each defendant possessed full knowledge of the conspiracy's general purpose and scope.” United States v. Huggans, 650 F.3d 1210, 1222 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Prieskorn, 658 F.2d 631, 634 (8th Cir.1981)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“In a drug conspiracy case, the district court may consider amounts from drug transactions in which the defendant was not directly involved if those dealings were part of the same course of conduct or scheme.” United States v. Bradley, 643 F.3d 1121, 1126 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1014 (8th Cir.2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see alsoU.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). “[T]he sentencing court may consider all transactions known or reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that were made in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Payton, 636 F.3d 1027, 1046 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Plancarte–Vazquez, 450 F.3d 848, 852 (8th Cir.2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see alsoU.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1).

When the amount of drug seized by the government does not reflect the scale of the drug trafficking offense, as in this case, “the court shall approximate the quantity of the controlled...