Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-8-2007
USA v. Jordan
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3700
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Jordan" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 243.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/243
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-3700
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
DOUGLAS JERMAINE JORDAN
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 06-cr-00001-3)
District Judge: The Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 30, 2007
Before: RENDELL and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
and VANASKIE,* District Judge.
(Filed November 8, 2007 )
*Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie, District Judge for the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Douglas Jermaine Jordan pleaded guilty to one count of an indictment charging
him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over fifty grams of cocaine base
and over five hundred grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(B), and 846, reserving the right to dispute the actual amount or the weight of
the drugs as may be attributable to him. A pre-sentence report determined Jordan’s
involvement in this drug conspiracy to mandate an attribution of the total amount of the
cocaine base and the powder cocaine found in a safe in the home of a co-conspirator
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. After a hearing in which Jordan objected to the attribution,
the District Court adopted the PSR, attributing 240 grams of cocaine base to Jordan.
The Sentencing Guidelines Commentary provides that where “there is no drug
seizure or the amount seized does not reflect the scale of the offense, the sentencing judge
shall approximate the quantity of the controlled substance.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1,
Application Note 12.
Here, the District Court considered all of the evidence that was presented as well
as the competing arguments of defense counsel and the Government and imposed a
sentence based upon the court's conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence
2
established that Jordan knew that his co-conspirator’s operations involved both cocaine
base and powder cocaine. Indeed, Jordan himself admitted to selling both substances.
Moreover, as part of his plea, Jordan voluntarily and knowingly agreed with the
Government’s proffer which indicated that the conspiracy engaged in the sale of both
cocaine base and powder cocaine; that on a weekly basis quantities of both cocaine base
and powder cocaine were transported from Buffalo, New York to Erie, Pennsylvania; and
that Jordan had himself sold both “crack and powder cocaine.” As the Government
points out, Jordan reserved an objection only to the amount of cocaine base he may have
sold — not challenging the fact that Jordan had sold cocaine base. The District Court
also heard the testimony of agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation , who indicated
that the contents of a safe uncovered at a “stash house” merely provided a “snapshot in
time” of the group’s overall activities.
Accordingly, the District Court's conclusion that Jordan was responsible for 240.2
grams of cocaine base was not clearly erroneous. For the reasons set forth above, we will
affirm the judgment of sentence
3