# United States v. Franklin Brown > Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · September 8, 2016 · 836 F.3d 827 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4032251 ## Case - **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Franklin BROWN, Defendant-Appellant - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - **Decided:** September 8, 2016 - **Citations:** 836 F.3d 827; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16551; 2016 WL 4698951 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Bauer, Posner, Sykes - **Nature of suit:** criminal - **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4032251 ## Opinion text   In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ȱ ȱ No.ȱ16Ȭ1216ȱ UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA,ȱ PlaintiffȬAppellee,ȱ v.ȱ FRANKLINȱBROWN,ȱ DefendantȬAppellant.ȱ ____________________ȱ AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrictȱCourtȱforȱtheȱ NorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois,ȱEasternȱDivision.ȱ No.ȱ09ȱCRȱ671ȱ—ȱJamesȱB.ȱZagel,ȱJudge.ȱ ____________________ȱ ARGUEDȱAUGUSTȱ9,ȱ2016ȱ—ȱDECIDEDȱSEPTEMBERȱ8,ȱ2016ȱ ____________________ȱ BeforeȱBAUER,ȱPOSNER,ȱandȱSYKES,ȱCircuitȱJudges.ȱ BAUER,ȱCircuitȱJudge.ȱFranklinȱBrownȱseeksȱtoȱreduceȱhisȱ 292Ȭmonthȱ drugȬdistributionȱ sentenceȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ retroacȬ tiveȱapplicationȱofȱAmendmentȱ782ȱtoȱtheȱfederalȱsentencingȱ guidelines.ȱSeeȱ18ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ3582(c).ȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdeniedȱ theȱmotion,ȱdeterminingȱthatȱBrown’sȱoffenseȱlevelȱwasȱunȬ affectedȱbyȱtheȱamendment.ȱWeȱaffirm.ȱ 2ȱ No.ȱ16Ȭ1216ȱ Betweenȱ2003ȱandȱ2008,ȱBrownȱpurchasedȱandȱdistributȬ edȱmillionsȱofȱdollar’sȱworthȱofȱcocaineȱinȱtheȱChicagoȱarea.ȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ v.ȱ Brown,ȱ 726ȱF.3dȱ 993,ȱ 995ȱ (7thȱCir.ȱ 2013).ȱ Heȱ eventuallyȱwasȱarrestedȱbyȱfederalȱauthoritiesȱandȱconvictedȱ byȱaȱjuryȱofȱconspiringȱtoȱdistributeȱatȱleastȱfiveȱkilogramsȱofȱ cocaine,ȱ seeȱ 21ȱ U.S.C.ȱ §§ȱ 846,ȱ 841(a)(1).ȱ Brown,ȱ 726ȱF.3dȱ atȱ995–96.ȱ Atȱsentencingȱtheȱpartiesȱdisputedȱtheȱquantityȱofȱcocaineȱ forȱ whichȱ Brownȱ wasȱ responsible.ȱ Brownȱ arguedȱ thatȱ heȱ shouldȱ beȱ heldȱ responsibleȱ onlyȱ forȱ fiveȱ kilograms,ȱ asȱ theȱ juryȱhadȱfound,ȱbecause,ȱheȱasserted,ȱthatȱwasȱtheȱmaximumȱ establishedȱ byȱ reliableȱ evidence.ȱ Theȱ governmentȱ soughtȱ toȱ holdȱhimȱresponsibleȱforȱnearlyȱ3000ȱkilograms,ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ trialȱ testimonyȱ ofȱ threeȱ cooperatingȱ witnessesȱ aboutȱ theȱ numberȱ ofȱ Brown’sȱ transactionsȱ andȱ theȱ volumeȱ ofȱ drugsȱ soldȱinȱeach.ȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdeterminedȱwithoutȱelaboraȬ tionȱ thatȱ 150ȱ kilogramsȱ wereȱ “withinȱ theȱ zoneȱ ofȱ thisȱ deȬ fendant’sȱ responsibility,”ȱ andȱ thatȱ thisȱ quantityȱ hadȱ beenȱ “provenȱandȱprobablyȱprovenȱtwiceȱover.”ȱTheȱquantityȱcorȬ respondedȱtoȱaȱbaseȱoffenseȱlevelȱofȱ38—theȱtopȱbaseȱoffenseȱ levelȱ providedȱ inȱ theȱ drugȱ quantityȱ table.ȱ Seeȱ U.S.S.G.ȱ §ȱ2D1.1(c)(1)ȱ (2011)ȱ (baseȱ offenseȱ levelȱ ofȱ 38ȱ appliesȱ toȱ “150ȱKGȱ orȱ moreȱ ofȱ Cocaine”).ȱ Theȱ courtȱ added,ȱ “Iȱ thinkȱ ifȱ weȱ hadȱ aȱ levelȱ 40ȱ orȱ aȱ levelȱ 42ȱ onȱ topȱ ofȱ that,ȱ itȱ probablyȱ makesȱ thatȱ figure,ȱ too.”ȱ Combinedȱ withȱ aȱ criminalȱ historyȱ categoryȱofȱIII,ȱBrown’sȱtotalȱoffenseȱlevelȱofȱ38ȱ(heȱreceivedȱ noȱ adjustments)ȱ yieldedȱ aȱ guidelinesȱ rangeȱ ofȱ 292ȱ toȱ 360ȱ months.ȱ Theȱ courtȱ sentencedȱ himȱ toȱ theȱ bottomȱ ofȱ thatȱ range.ȱ Brownȱ appealedȱ hisȱ conviction—butȱ notȱ theȱ court’sȱ drugȱquantityȱcalculation—andȱweȱaffirmed.ȱBrown,ȱ726ȱF.3dȱ 993.ȱ No.ȱ16Ȭ1216ȱ 3 Threeȱyearsȱafterȱheȱwasȱsentenced,ȱBrownȱfiledȱaȱmotionȱ underȱ 18ȱ U.S.C.ȱ §ȱ3582(c)(2)ȱ toȱ reduceȱ hisȱ sentenceȱ underȱ Amendmentȱ782.ȱThatȱamendmentȱraisedȱtheȱamountȱofȱcoȬ caineȱnecessaryȱtoȱqualifyȱforȱaȱbaseȱoffenseȱlevelȱofȱ38ȱfromȱ 150ȱ kilogramsȱ toȱ 450ȱ kilograms.ȱ SeeȱU.S.S.G.ȱ §ȱ1B1.10(d)ȱ &ȱ Supp.ȱ toȱ App.ȱ C,ȱ amends.ȱ782,ȱ 788ȱ (2014).ȱ Theȱ governmentȱ maintainedȱ thatȱ Brown’sȱ baseȱ offenseȱ levelȱ wasȱ unchangedȱ byȱtheȱamendmentȱbecauseȱheȱwasȱresponsibleȱforȱwellȱoverȱ 450ȱkilogramsȱ basedȱ onȱ witnessȱ testimonyȱ aboutȱ hisȱ drugȱ transactions.ȱ Inȱ replyȱ Brownȱ notedȱ thatȱ theȱ courtȱ hadȱ notȱ foundȱ himȱ accountableȱ forȱ aȱ quantityȱ moreȱ specificȱ thanȱ 150ȱkilogramsȱ orȱ moreȱ ofȱ cocaine,ȱ andȱ askedȱ theȱ courtȱ toȱ makeȱaȱfindingȱaboutȱtheȱactualȱdrugȱweightȱinȱorderȱtoȱdeȬ termineȱwhetherȱheȱqualifiedȱforȱaȱsentenceȱreductionȱunderȱ Amendmentȱ782.ȱIfȱtheȱcourtȱfoundȱhimȱresponsibleȱforȱlessȱ thanȱ450ȱkilograms,ȱtheȱamendedȱguidelineȱrangeȱwouldȱbeȱ 235ȱtoȱ293ȱmonthsȱ(downȱfromȱ292ȱtoȱ360)ȱandȱBrownȱaskedȱ theȱcourtȱtoȱresentenceȱhimȱtoȱtheȱ240ȱmonthȱstatutoryȱminȬ imum.ȱ TheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdeclinedȱtoȱdisturbȱitsȱguidelineȱcalcuȬ lationȱandȱdeniedȱtheȱmotion:ȱȱ TheȱproblemȱforȱBrownȱisȱthatȱhisȱoffenseȱlevelȱ isȱnot,ȱandȱhasȱnot,ȱbeenȱlowered.ȱHeȱhasȱanȱofȬ fenseȱ levelȱ ofȱ 38,ȱ andȱ thisȱ levelȱ appliesȱ underȱ bothȱ theȱ olderȱ andȱ theȱ newerȱ revisedȱ guideȬ lines.ȱ Theȱ continuingȱ existenceȱ ofȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ 38ȱ isȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ theȱ veryȱ largeȱ quantitiesȱ ofȱ cocaineȱ involved.ȱ Iȱ foundȱ thatȱ Brownȱ wasȱ clearlyȱ responsibleȱ forȱ 150ȱ kilogramsȱ ofȱ coȬ caine.ȱ Indeed,ȱ Iȱ thoughtȱ theȱ quantitiesȱ mightȱ haveȱbeenȱhigher,ȱbutȱaȱlevelȱ40ȱorȱ42ȱwasȱapȬ 4ȱ No.ȱ16Ȭ1216ȱ propriateȱasȱwellȱifȱtheȱ2012ȱguidelinesȱprovidȬ edȱforȱlevelsȱofȱ40ȱtoȱ42.ȱIȱthoughtȱthereȱwasȱnoȱ wayȱtoȱgoȱfurtherȱthanȱlevelȱ38.ȱThereȱwasȱeviȬ denceȱ thatȱ moreȱ thanȱ 450ȱ kilogramsȱ wasȱ partȱ ofȱhisȱresponsibility.ȱ Asȱ anȱ alternativeȱ basisȱ forȱ denyingȱ Brown’sȱ motion,ȱ theȱ courtȱaddedȱthatȱheȱwasȱsentencedȱunderȱtheȱcareerȱoffenderȱ guidelineȱandȱthereforeȱineligibleȱforȱanyȱsentenceȱreductionȱ underȱtheȱamendment.ȱ Brownȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ districtȱ courtȱ erredȱ inȱ concludingȱ thatȱ Amendmentȱ 782ȱ doesȱ notȱ lowerȱ hisȱ offenseȱ level.ȱ Heȱ contendsȱ thatȱ theȱ districtȱ courtȱ failedȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ drugȬ quantityȱfindingȱmoreȱspecificȱthanȱhisȱbeingȱresponsibleȱforȱ “150ȱkilogramsȱorȱmore”ȱofȱcocaine,ȱandȱasȱaȱresultȱcouldȱnotȱ haveȱ evaluatedȱ whetherȱ heȱ wasȱ eligibleȱ forȱ aȱ reductionȱ unȬ derȱ§ȱ3582(c)(2).ȱ Whenȱ aȱ retroactiveȱ amendmentȱ toȱ theȱ guidelinesȱ altersȱ theȱ relevantȱ drugȬquantityȱ thresholdsȱ forȱ determiningȱ theȱ baseȱoffenseȱlevel,ȱaȱdistrictȱcourtȱinȱrulingȱonȱaȱ§ȱ3582(c)ȱmoȬ tionȱmayȱneedȱtoȱmakeȱnewȱfindings—findingsȱthatȱareȱsupȬ portedȱ byȱ theȱ recordȱ andȱ notȱ inconsistentȱ withȱ thoseȱ madeȱ inȱ theȱ originalȱ sentencingȱ determination.ȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ v.ȱ Hall,ȱ600ȱF.3dȱ872,ȱ876ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2010).ȱȱ Theȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱorderȱisȱcursoryȱbutȱitȱdidȱnotȱcommitȱ reversibleȱ errorȱ inȱ denyingȱ Brown’sȱ motion.ȱ Theȱ courtȱ deȬ niedȱBrown’sȱmotionȱbecauseȱtheȱamendmentȱdidȱnotȱlowerȱ hisȱoffenseȱlevel,ȱnotingȱthatȱ“thereȱwasȱevidenceȱthatȱmoreȱ thanȱ 450ȱ kilogramsȱ wasȱ partȱ ofȱ hisȱ responsibility.”ȱ Thisȱ statement—alongȱ withȱ theȱ court’sȱ commentȱ atȱ sentencingȱ thatȱtheȱveryȱlargeȱquantitiesȱofȱ cocaineȱwarrantedȱaȱhigherȱ No.ȱ16Ȭ1216ȱ 5 baseȱ offenseȱ levelȱ thanȱ whatȱ wasȱ authorizedȱ underȱ theȱ guidelines—reflectsȱ theȱ court’sȱ determinationȱ thatȱ Brownȱ wasȱresponsibleȱforȱ450ȱkilogramsȱorȱmoreȱofȱcocaine.ȱWhileȱ theȱ districtȱ courtȱ couldȱ haveȱ expressedȱ itsȱ drugȬquantityȱ findingȱ moreȱ clearly,ȱ remandȱ isȱ notȱ necessaryȱ becauseȱ theȱ outcomeȱ ofȱ suchȱ proceedingsȱ wouldȱ beȱ clearȱ andȱ remandȱ futile.ȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱHallahan,ȱ756ȱF.3dȱ962,ȱ971ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ 2014);ȱ Unitedȱ Statesȱ v.ȱ Purchess,ȱ 107ȱF.3dȱ 1261,ȱ 1269ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 1997).ȱ Asȱ theȱ governmentȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ theȱ recordȱ confirmsȱ thatȱBrownȱwasȱresponsibleȱforȱ450ȱkilograms:ȱwitnessesȱtesȬ tifiedȱ toȱ deliveringȱ thousandsȱ ofȱ kilogramsȱ ofȱ cocaineȱ andȱ receivingȱ millionsȱ ofȱ dollarsȱ asȱ payments.ȱ Brown,ȱ 726ȱ F.3dȱ atȱ996.ȱ Weȱ closeȱ byȱ notingȱ thatȱ theȱ court’sȱ alternativeȱ basisȱ forȱ denyingȱ theȱ motion—thatȱ Brownȱ wasȱ sentencedȱ underȱ theȱ careerȱ offenderȱ guideline—wasȱ incorrect.ȱ Butȱ becauseȱ theȱ courtȱ properlyȱ concludedȱ Brown’sȱ offenseȱ levelȱ wasȱ unȬ changedȱ byȱ theȱ amendment,ȱ thisȱ errorȱ wasȱ harmless.ȱ SeeȱUnitedȱ Statesȱ v.ȱ Clayton,ȱ 811ȱF.3dȱ 918,ȱ 921ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2016)ȱ (applyingȱharmlessȱerrorȱtoȱdecisionȱonȱ§ȱ3582(c)(2)ȱmotion).ȱ AFFIRMED.ȱ 6                                                                          No. 16‐1216 POSNER,  Circuit  Judge,  dissenting.  In  2012  the defendant  was  sentenced  to  292  months  in  prison  after being  convicted  of  conspiring  to  distribute  five kilograms  of  cocaine.  At  sentencing  the  government argued that he had sold not five but  2942 kilograms; the government  based  the  argument  on  testimony  from three  cooperating  witnesses  about  the  number  of  the defendant’s  sales  and  the  amount  of  drugs  in  each sale.  The  district  judge  stated  summarily  that  150 kilograms  were  “within  the  zone  of  this  defendant’s responsibility,”  this  quantity  having  been  “proven  and probably  proven  twice  over.”  That  determination, coupled  with  the  defendant’s  criminal  history,  made his base offense level 38, yielding  a  guidelines  range  of 292  to  365  months;  the  sentence  imposed  was  thus  at the bottom of the range. Judgment  and  sentence  were  affirmed  in  United States  v.  Brown,  726  F.3d  993,  995  (7th  Cir.  2013).  But three years after  the defendant was sentenced, he filed a motion  to  reduce  his  sentence  in  reliance  on Amendment  782  to  the  guidelines,  which  had  raised the  amount  of  cocaine  required  for  a  base  offense level of 38 from 150 to 450 kilograms. He pointed out  that the judge  had  not  found  him  accountable  for  any  quantity of  cocaine  other  than  150  kilograms,  and  he  asked  the judge  to  make  a  finding  about  the  actual  drug  weight in  order  to  determine  whether  his  guideline  range  had been  reduced  by  Amendment  782.  For  unless  the weight  was  at  least  450  kilograms,  his  guideline  range would fall from 292  to 365 months to 235 to 293 months (actually  240  months,  the  statutory  minimum,  to  293). He  asked  that  he  be  resentenced  to  240  months.  The judge  refused,  adhering  to  his  original  sentence  of  292 months,  primarily  on  the  ground  that  “there  was No. 16‐1216    7 evidence  that  more  than  450  kilograms  was  part  of  his responsibility.”  But  he  offered  no  substantiation  for  this conclusion.  He  described  neither  the  evidence  he relied  on  to  support  that  finding  nor  the  method  he’d used  to  calculate  the  weight  of  the  drugs  from  that evidence. It would be one thing had the cooperating witnesses’ testimony  about  the  tons  of  cocaine  that  the  defendant allegedly  had  distributed  been  uncontradicted,  but  it wasn’t;  the  defendant’s lawyer argued to the judge that “when  you  look  at  ...  the  two  [cooperating  witnesses] that  had  testified  to  giving  drugs  to  my  client,  there’s really only one deal that had  any specifics, and that was …  the  last  deal  of  the  conspiracy  and  that  was  57 kilos.”  The  judge  did  not  engage  the  lawyers,  or indeed  so  much  as  mention  their  argument  or  the evidence  concerning  those  two  cooperating  witnesses on  which  the  argument  rested.  As  a  result  we  have  no indication  of  the  judge’s  thought  process  in  finding  the defendant  responsible  for  more  than  450  kilograms  of cocaine. A  sentencing  judge  must  “provide  ‘some description  of  the  reliable  evidence  used  to  support the  finding  and  the  method  used  to  calculate  it,’” United  States  v.  Garrett,  757  F.3d  560,  572–73  (7th  Cir. 2014), quoting United States v. Clay‐  brooks,  729  F.3d  699, 707  (7th  Cir.  2013).  These  cases  involve  original sentencing,  but  the  principle  they  enunciate  is,  as held in  such  cases  as  United  States  v.  Goings,  407  F.  App’x 967,  969  (7th  Cir.  2011),  and  United  States  v.  Marion,  590 F.3d  475,  477–78  (7th  Cir.  2009),  equally  applicable  to  a resentencing, as in this case. We are mindful that the judge offered an alternative, unrelated  basis  for  denying  the  defendant’s  motion: 8                                                                          No. 16‐1216 that  the  defendant  had  been  properly  sentenced under  a  different  guideline,  the  guideline  for  career offenders.  But  as  the  government  concedes,  the defendant  was  not  sentenced  under that  guideline.  So the  judge  had  no  alternative  to  the  450  kilogram finding  as  a  basis  for  the  defendant’s  motion.  But  he didn’t  know  that,  and  for  all  we  know  his  mistaken belief  in  an  alternative  ground  for  adhering  to  his original  sentence  made  him  all  the  more  casual  in estimating drug levels. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4032251. Public record. Not legal advice.