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.