united states v. martin, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Martin, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/26

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1990

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

NI COLE MARTI N,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. J ohn A. Woodcock, J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Dyk, * and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

J ames A. Cl i f f or d, wi t h whomLaw Of f i ce of J ames Cl i f f or d, LLCwas on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Rene M. Bunker , Ass i st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomRi char d W. Mur phy, Act i ng Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

Apr i l 23, 2014

* Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/26

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Fol l owi ng a t i p f rom a

conf i dent i al i nf or mant , l aw enf or cement of f i cer s pul l ed over t he

vehi cl e of Ni col e Mar t i n on Mar ch 28, 2007. A sear ch t ur ned up

her oi n, cocai ne, and oxycodone. Mar t i n was ar r est ed, i ndi ct ed, and

ul t i mat el y pl ed gui l t y t o possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e. At

sent enci ng, r el yi ng on t wo pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons t hat Mar t i n

had, t he j udge t r eat ed her as a career of f ender and handed down a

108- mont h sent ence. Mar t i n appeal s t hat sent ence. I n a nut shel l ,

she di sput es her car eer of f ender st at us because, accor di ng t o

Mar t i n, her t wo pr i or convi ct i ons shoul d have been t r eat ed as one

f or sent enci ng pur poses. Af t er a pai nst aki ng r evi ew of t he r ecor d

and t he appl i cabl e l aw, we af f i r m her sent ence.

I. BACKGROUND1

The cr i me that l ed t o thi s appeal occur r ed i n Mar ch 2007

but bef ore we get i nt o the detai l s of what happened, we must t r avel

f ur t her back t o when t he convi ct i ons, upon whi ch the j udge' s career

of f ender det er mi nat i on r est ed, occur r ed. These convi ct i ons st emmed

f r omt wo cont r ol l ed pur chase t r ansact i ons by under cover Mai ne Dr ug

Enf orcement Agency ( "MDEA") agent s who were i nvest i gat i ng a heroi n

wave t hat was f l oodi ng Hancock Count y, Mai ne. 2 The f i r st pur chase

1 Because t her e was no t r i al , we dr aw t he f act s f r om t hechange of pl ea col l oquy, t he pr esent ence repor t s, and t het r anscr i pt of t he sent enci ng hear i ng. See Uni t ed St at es v.Col n- Sol s, 354 F. 3d 101, 102 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

2 Any ci t y, t own, or count y r ef er r ed t o i n t hi s opi ni on i sl ocat ed i n Mai ne.

-2-


3/26

was on Sept ember 27, 2001 i n Bass Har bor ( " t he Sept ember 2001

of f ense") , and the second was t wo weeks l ater on Oct ober 11, 2001

i n Bar Har bor ( " t he Oct ober 2001 of f ense") . A br i ef summar y of t he

t r ansact i ons and subsequent convi ct i ons sheds l i ght on how t he

pr esent cont r oversy emerged.

A. The 2001 Offenses

On Sept ember 27, 2001, MDEA Speci al Agent Ruth Duquet t e

and a conf i dent i al i nf or mant met Mar t i n at her home i n Trent on.

Duquet t e, Mar t i n, and t he i nf or mant t hen dr ove t o Mar t i n' s deal er ' s

house i n Bass Har bor t o pur chase some her oi n. Her deal er , Chr i s

Ri chardson, was not home when t hey arr i ved. Af t er pagi ng

Ri char dson, t he t r i o met up wi t h hi m at a Texaco st at i on.

Ri chardson arr i ved at t he Texaco st at i on, accompani ed by another

man. Ri char dson di d not have any heroi n on hi m, but coul d get some

f r om t he guy who was wi t h hi m. Speci al Agent Duquet t e handed

Ri char dson $400 f or a bundl e - - i . e. , t en bags of her oi n - - and

Ri char dson pr omi sed t o meet back up wi t h t hem at hi s house, wi t h

t he her oi n, by 6: 00 p. m. Duquet t e, Mar t i n, and t he conf i dent i al

i nf or mant t hen pr oceeded t o Ri char dson' s house t o wai t f or hi m.

Meanwhi l e, Ri char dson made a her oi n r un t o hi s suppl i er ' s house i n

Sout hwest Harbor . He r etur ned unaccompani ed t o hi s home, wi t h t he

f ul l bundl e. Speci al Agent Duquet t e r ecei ved ni ne bags of her oi n

and Mar t i n kept one f or her sel f as commi ssi on.

-3-


4/26

Two weeks l at er , on Oct ober 11, 2001, a second cont r ol l ed

pur chase of heroi n went down. Thi s one t ook pl ace near t he

cl ot hi ng st or e i n Bar Harbor wher e Mar t i n wor ked. Speci al Agent

Duquet t e wai t ed unt i l Mar t i n' s shi f t was over at 9: 00 p. m. t o

approach her . When she asked Mar t i n f or assi st ance get t i ng a hol d

of mor e her oi n, Mar t i n r eveal ed she di d not have anythi ng at t hat

t i me, but coul d hel p her out i n an hour . Speci al Agent Duquet t e

r etur ned by 9: 52 p. m. Ar ound 10: 00 p. m. , Mar t i n met wi t h a man i n

a car r egi st ered t o Cameron Br own. 3 Af t er appr oxi mat el y t went y

mi nut es, Mar t i n r et ur ned t o Speci al Agent Duquet t e' s car and got

i n. War y of pol i ce pr esence t hat ni ght , Mar t i n i nst r uct ed Duquet t e

t o dr i ve down t he st r eet . Once t her e, Mar t i n got out of t he car ,

and agai n, spoke wi t h peopl e i n t he Br own car . Af t er Mar t i n

r et ur ned t o Speci al Agent Duquet t e' s vehi cl e, t he pai r dr ove t o a

near by busi ness, and pul l ed up on t he si de of i t . Duquet t e handed

Mart i n $250: $200 f or t he heroi n and $50 as commi ss i on. Mart i n got

out of t he vehi cl e, met wi t h someone f r omt he Br own car , and came

back wi t h f our "doubl e bags" of her oi n.

B. Martin is Convicted for the 2001 Offenses

On Febr uary 5, 2002, a st ate gr and j ur y retur ned a two-

count i ndi ct ment char gi ng Mar t i n wi t h unl awf ul t r af f i cki ng i n

schedul ed dr ugs. The i ndi ct ment char ged Mar t i n wi t h t r af f i cki ng

3 The regi st r at i on i nf or mat i on was l ear ned when Duquet t et r ansmi t t ed t he car ' s l i cense pl at e number t o an MDEA survei l l ancet eam i n pl ace.

-4-


5/26

heroi n i n connect i on wi t h both the Sept ember 2001 of f ense and the

Oct ober 2001 of f ense. Mar t i n pl eaded gui l t y t o t r af f i cki ng her oi n

on Oct ober 11, 2001, and as a r esul t , t he charge f or t he Sept ember

2001 of f ense was di smi ssed.

Meanwhi l e f ederal pr oceedi ngs were underway as wel l . On

Apr i l 9, 2002, a f eder al gr and j ur y i n Bangor r et ur ned a one- count

i ndi ct ment char gi ng Mar t i n wi t h possessi on wi t h t he i nt ent t o

di st r i but e her oi n on Sept ember 27, 2001 - - i . e. , f or t he Sept ember

2001 of f ense. Mar t i n was arr est ed and charged by f ederal

aut hor i t i es. Mar t i n pl eaded gui l t y.

On Sept ember 10, 2002, Mar t i n was sent enced f or t he

Sept ember 2001 of f ense by a f ederal j udge ( who was aware of t he

pendi ng st at e char ges) t o a year and a day i n pr i son, and t hr ee

years' supervi sed r el ease. The next day, on Sept ember 11, 2002,

Mar t i n was sent enced i n st at e cour t f or t he Oct ober 2001 of f ense t o

a t er m of f our year s' i mpr i sonment , al l but one year of whi ch was

suspended, and t hr ee year s' pr obat i on.

Wi t h t hi s backdr op i n pl ace, we f ast f or war d a f ew year s

t o t he ci r cumst ances t hat gave r i se t o Mar t i n' s most r ecent

convi ct i on, f r om whi ch t hi s appeal st ems.

C. The 2007 Offense

On March 28, 2007, MDEA agent s r ecei ved a t i p f r om a

conf i dent i al i nf or mant who had r ecent l y bought t wo 80- mi l l i gr am

oxycodone t abl et s f r om Mar t i n. Accor di ng t o t he conf i dent i al

-5-


6/26

i nf or mant , Mar t i n woul d be dr i vi ng f r om Por t l and t o Bangor wi t h a

dr ug del i ver y. Act i ng on t hi s l ead, MDEA agent s spot t ed her

vehi cl e headi ng nor t h on I nt er st at e 95 and kept i t under cl ose

sur vei l l ance. Bangor pol i ce of f i cer s ul t i mat el y st opped Mar t i n as

she exi t ed t he i nt er st at e.

By t he t i me MDEA agent s ar r i ved on the scene, Mar t i n was

al r eady out si de her vehi cl e speaki ng wi t h a pol i ce of f i cer . MDEA

Speci al Agent Br ad J ohnst on, who knew Mar t i n f r ompr i or encount er s,

appr oached her and asked i f she was on f ederal supervi sed r el ease.

Mar t i n acknowl edged she was. Speci al Agent J ohnst on t hen asked her

i f t her e wer e any dr ugs i n t he car . Mar t i n r esponded

af f i r mat i vel y, and di r ect ed hi mt o her pur se on t he f r ont passenger

seat . The sear ch of Mar t i n' s pur se r eveal ed 21 bags of her oi n, 4. 4

gr ams of cocai ne, and 25 and one- hal f 40- mi l l i gr am oxycodone

t abl et s. Accor di ng t o Mar t i n, she had got t en t he dr ugs f r om a

deal er i n Por t l and, and had been sel l i ng f or appr oxi mat el y a mont h:

cocai ne f or $80 a gr am, heroi n f or $15 a bag, and oxycodone t abl ets

f or $40 each.

Mar t i n was char ged by a f eder al gr and j ur y i n a thr ee-

count i ndi ct ment wi t h possessi on wi t h t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e

cocai ne, oxycodone, and her oi n i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C.

841( a) ( 1) . Mar t i n ent er ed i nt o a pl ea agr eement wi t h t he

gover nment and, on J ul y 5, 2007, Mar t i n pl eaded gui l t y t o al l

count s of t he i ndi ct ment and admi t t ed t o vi ol at i ng t he condi t i ons

-6-


7/26

of her super vi sed r el ease. Al l t hat r emai ned was f or Mar t i n t o be

sent enced.

D. Sentencing

The pr i mar y sent enci ng- r el at ed i ssue was whet her Mar t i n

shoul d be t r eat ed as a car eer of f ender i n l i ght of her t wo pr evi ous

f el ony convi ct i ons ( st emmi ng f r om t he Sept ember 2001 of f ense and

t he Oct ober 2001 of f ense) . For Mar t i n, t he di f f er ence bet ween

car eer of f ender st at us and non- car eer of f ender st at us was

si gni f i cant : i f she di d not qual i f y as a car eer of f ender , t he

appl i cabl e sent enci ng r ange was 27 t o 33 mont hs, but i f she di d, i t

was 188 t o 235 mont hs. The Uni t ed St at es Probat i on Of f i ce' s f i nal

pr esent ence r epor t r ecommended t hat Mar t i n be t r eat ed as a career

of f ender . Mar t i n di sagr eed.

The di sput e cent er ed ar ound 4B1. 1 of t he 2006 Uni t ed

St at es Sent enci ng Gui del i nes Manual ( t he "Gui del i nes" ) . Gr eat er

det ai l on t he appl i cabl e l aw wi l l come l at er , but f or now i t

suf f i ces t o not e t hat under 4B1. 1, a def endant shoul d be t r eat ed

as a car eer of f ender i f ( among ot her t hi ngs not r el evant t o t hi s

appeal ) she has at l east t wo pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons of a

cont r ol l ed subst ance of f ense. See U. S. S. G. 4B1. 1( a) . 4

Mart i n, i n her sent enci ng memoranda, argued t hat she di d

not sat i sf y thi s r equi r ement . I n shor t , she cl ai med t hat her pr i or

4 Mart i n was sent enced under t he 2006 versi on of t heGui del i nes. Ci t at i ons t o t he Gui del i nes ar e t o t he 2006 ver si onunl ess ot her wi se not ed.

-7-


8/26

f el ony convi ct i ons f or t he Sept ember 2001 of f ense and t he Oct ober

2001 of f ense shoul d not be count ed separatel y under t he Gui del i nes,

but r ather as one. She argued t hat t he t wo of f enses were part of

"a si ngl e common scheme or pl an, " i . e. , par t of t he MDEA' s

over ar chi ng dr ug i nvest i gat i on. Mar t i n al so al l eged t hat t he t wo

convi ct i ons wer e consol i dat ed f or sent enci ng pur poses, poi nt i ng out

t hat t he sent ences were i mposed wi t hi n a day of each ot her and r an

concur r ent l y. The gover nment pushed f or career of f ender st at us.

I t not ed i n i t s sent enci ng memor andumt hat Mar t i n' s conduct char ged

i n t he f eder al and st at e cases had occur r ed on di f f er ent occasi ons,

i n t wo di f f er ent t owns, and t he her oi n had been pr ovi ded t o Mar t i n

by t wo di f f er ent sour ces.

An evi dent i ary hear i ng was hel d on November 20, 2008, t o

pr obe t he i ssue. Pr i or t o t he hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t j udge

had r evi ewed t he sent enci ng t r anscr i pt s of bot h t he f eder al

sent enci ng hear i ng f or t he Sept ember 2001 of f ense and t he st ate

sent enci ng hear i ng f or the Oct ober 2001 of f ense. Dur i ng t he

hear i ng, t he cour t hear d t est i mony f r om Speci al Agent J ames Car r ,

an MDEA agent i nvol ved i n t he Hancock Count y i nvest i gat i on t hat l ed

t o Mar t i n' s pr i or convi ct i ons. The t wo- count st at e cour t

i ndi ct ment and t he one- count f eder al cour t i ndi ct ment wer e al so

i nt r oduced i nt o evi dence. Equi pped wi t h al l of t hi s evi dence,

al ong wi t h document at i on pr evi ousl y submi t t ed by the par t i es, such

as t he MDEA r epor t s f or t he t wo cont r ol l ed pur chase t r ansact i ons

-8-


9/26

bet ween Mar t i n and Speci al Agent Duquet t e, t he di st r i ct cour t t ook

t he i ssue of Mar t i n' s car eer of f ender st at us under advi sement .

E. The District Court's Opinion

On December 3, 2008, t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued i t s

deci si on. I t noted t hat appl yi ng t he concept of a common scheme or

pl an t o a dr ug addi ct l i ke Mar t i n was " admi t t edl y pr obl emat i c"

because, i n essence, each and ever y day Mar t i n was engaged i n some

t ype of scheme or pl an t o pr ocur e her oi n i n the conf i ned geogr aphi c

ar ea wher e she l i ved ( Mount Desert I sl and) . Nonet hel ess, t he cour t

di d not t hi nk t he under l yi ng of f enses wer e par t of a si ngl e common

scheme or pl an. 5 Looki ng f or some ki nd of connect i ve t i ssue

between t he t wo of f enses, t he cour t f ound t hat Mart i n had not

ant i ci pat ed or pl anned t he Oct ober 2001 of f ense at t he t i me of t he

September 2001 of f ense, and ther ef or e no common scheme or pl an

exi st ed. Thus, Mar t i n' s cr i mi nal hi st or y i ncl uded t wo pr i or f el ony

convi ct i ons of a cont r ol l ed subst ance of f ense, whi ch war r ant ed

car eer of f ender desi gnat i on pur suant t o 4B1. 1 of t he Gui del i nes.

The cour t sent enced her t o i mpr i sonment f or a t er m of 108 mont hs

5 The cour t al so rej ect ed Mart i n' s argument t hat t he Sept ember2001 of f ense and t he Oct ober 2001 of f ense had been consol i dat ed f or

sent enci ng. The cour t f ound no f or mal or der or i ndi ci a ofconsol i dat i on, expl ai ni ng, "t he [ f eder al and st at e] char ges wer ei ni t i at ed i n separ at e cour t s by separ at e char gi ng i nst r ument st hr ough separ at e gr and j ur i es and br ought bef or e separ at e j udges onseparate days wi t h separate docket numbers and r esul t ed i n separatej udgment s and commi t ment s. " Mar t i n does not di sput e t hi s f i ndi ngand has abandoned her sentenci ng consol i dat i on argument on appeal .

-9-


10/26

( i n ot her wor ds, ni ne year s) . Mar t i n t i mel y appeal ed her sent ence;

her sol e chal l enge i s t o her cl assi f i cat i on as a car eer of f ender .

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A di st r i ct cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i on of a sent enci ng

gui del i ne' s meani ng and scope cal l s f or de novo r evi ew. Uni t ed

St at es v. Car r er o- Her nndez, 643 F. 3d 344, 349 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

The det er mi nat i on of whet her a pr i or convi ct i on qual i f i es as a

pr edi cat e of f ense f or pur poses of t he car eer of f ender gui del i nes i s

a quest i on of l aw we r evi ew de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Tavar es, 705

F. 3d 4, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . As f or t he cour t ' s appl i cat i on of t he

Gui del i nes t o t he f act s, we gi ve t hat due def er ence, Uni t ed St at es

v. Gr ei g, 717 F. 3d 212, 217 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , and wi l l not f i nd

cl ear er r or as "l ong as t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on i s based on

r easonabl e i nf er ences dr awn f r om adequat el y suppor t ed f act s, "

Uni t ed St at es v. Sant os, 357 F. 3d 136, 142 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

A di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act ar e al so r evi ewed

onl y f or cl ear er r or . Car r er o- Her nndez, 643 F. 3d at 349. Under

a cl ear er r or st andar d, a di st r i ct cour t ' s pl ausi bl e i nt er pr et at i on

of t he f act s cannot be r ej ect ed j ust because the r ecor d mi ght

sust ai n a conf l i ct i ng i nt er pr et at i on. I n r e O' Donnel l , 728 F. 3d

41, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . "[ T] o f i nd cl ear er r or , a f i ndi ng must hi t

us as more than pr obabl y wr ong - - i t must pr ompt a st r ong,

unyi el di ng bel i ef , based on t he whol e of t he r ecor d, t hat t he j udge

-10-


11/26

made a mi st ake. " I d. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) .

III. DISCUSSION

A. Primer on Career Offender Guidelines

Bef or e we del ve i nt o t he mer i t s of Mar t i n' s cl ai med

er r or s, we pause t o say a l i t t l e mor e on t he r el evant l aw.

Accor di ng to 4B1. 1, a def endant sent enced i n f eder al cour t shoul d

be t r eat ed as a car eer of f ender i f : ( 1) t he def endant was at l east

ei ght een when she commi t t ed t he i nst ant of f ense; ( 2) t he i nst ant

of f ense i s ei t her a cr i me of vi ol ence or a cont r ol l ed subst ance

of f ense; and ( 3) she "has at l east t wo pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons of

ei t her a cr i me of vi ol ence or a cont r ol l ed subst ance of f ense. "

U. S. S. G. 4B1. 1( a) . 6

To have t wo pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons f or pur poses of

car eer of f ender st at us, not onl y must a def endant have at l east t wo

f el ony convi ct i ons of ei t her a cr i me of vi ol ence or a cont r ol l ed

subst ance of f ense under her bel t , but t he sent ences f or t hese

f el ony convi ct i ons must be such as t o be count ed separatel y under

t he pr ovi si ons of 4A1. 1( a) , ( b) , or ( c). U. S. S. G. 4B1. 2( c).

"Pr i or sent ences i mposed i n unr el at ed cases are t o be count ed

6 Pr ongs one and t wo ar e not at i ssue i n t hi s case; t her e i sno di sput e that Mar t i n' s Mar ch 28, 2007 of f ense const i t ut ed acont r ol l ed subst ance f el ony of f ense or t hat she was ei ght een whenshe commi t t ed i t . As f or pr ong t hr ee, t her e i s al so nodi sagr eement t hat her pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons ar e convi ct i ons f orcont r ol l ed subst ance of f enses. The onl y i ssue i s whet her t heyshoul d ef f ect i vel y be consi der ed one convi ct i on.

-11-


12/26

separ at el y, " whi l e " [ p] r i or sent ences i mposed i n r el at ed cases ar e

t o be t r eat ed as one sent ence f or pur poses of 4A1. 1( a) , ( b) , and

( c) . " I d. 4A1. 2( a) ( 2) .

Al t hough seemi ngl y st r ai ght f or war d, what count s as a

r el at ed case ver sus an unr el at ed case can get t r i cky. Accor di ng t o

4A1. 2' s accompanyi ng comment ary, f or pr i or sent ences t o be

r el at ed - - and t hus t r eat ed as one f or pur poses of car eer of f ender

st at us - - t he under l yi ng of f enses must have ei t her "occur r ed on t he

same occasi on, " been "part of a si ngl e common scheme or pl an, " or

been "consol i dat ed f or t r i al or sent enci ng. " I d. 4A1. 2, cmt .

n. 3. 7 As we r ef erenced, t he "par t of a si ngl e common scheme or

pl an" concept i on i s what i s ger mane t o t hi s case. Wi t h t he

r el evant l aw sket ched, we pr oceed t o our anal ysi s.

B. The Standard for a Single Common Scheme or Plan

As we al l uded t o above, when deci di ng whether Mar t i n

qual i f i ed f or car eer of f ender st at us, t he di st r i ct cour t r equi r ed

t hat , i n or der f or mul t i pl e dr ug t r ansact i ons t o const i t ut e a

si ngl e common scheme or pl an, t he t r ansact i ons had t o have been

agr eed t o ( or at l east pl anned, di scussed or cont empl at ed) by t he

def endant at t he t i me of t he f i r st t r ansact i on. I t f i r st not ed

t hi s cour t ' s di r ect i ve t hat t he phr ase "common scheme or pl an" be

7 The Gui del i nes have been subsequent l y amended t o r equi r et hat mul t i pl e pr i or sent ences be count ed separ at el y unl ess t hey"r esul t ed f r omof f enses cont ai ned i n t he same char gi ng i nst r ument , "or "were i mposed on t he same day. " U. S. S. G. 4A1. 2( a) ( 2) ( 2013) .

-12-


13/26

gi ven i t s "ordi nar y meani ng. " For t hi s pr oposi t i on, t he cour t

ci t ed Uni t ed St at es v. Godi n, 489 F. 3d 431 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( vacat ed

on r eh' g on other gr ounds by 522 F. 3d 133 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ) and

Uni t ed St at es v. El wel l , 984 F. 2d 1289 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . Godi n, t he

di st r i ct cour t cont i nued, st ood f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat a scheme

or pl an i mpl i es t he exi st ence of "some ki nd of connect i ve t i ssue, "

i . e. , an i ni t i al pl an i nvol vi ng mul t i pl e acts or st eps t aken t o a

si ngl e end. The cour t expanded on t hi s concept , not i ng t hat t he

Sevent h Ci r cui t , i n Uni t ed St at es v. Mar r er o, 299 F. 3d 653, 657

( 7t h Ci r . 2002) , "descr i bed t he t est as bei ng ' whet her t he second

cr i me was ant i ci pated and pl anned when t he or i gi nal cr i me was

pl anned or commi t t ed. ' "

Mar t i n ar gues t hat t he st andar d empl oyed by the di st r i ct

cour t f or eval uat i ng whether a common scheme or pl an exi st s i s more

st r i ngent t han t he st andar d act ual l y set by t hi s Cour t f or doi ng

so. Speci f i cal l y - - despi t e t he f act that t he di st r i ct cour t

r el i ed on bot h cases - - Mar t i n i nsi st s t he cour t ' s st andar d r uns

af oul of our di r ect i ve i n El wel l and Godi n t o gi ve t he phr ase "par t

of a si ngl e common scheme or pl an" i t s " ordi nary meani ng. "

Mar t i n' s argument i s har d t o f ol l ow but , as best we can t el l , she

cl ai ms t hat t he phr ase' s ordi nar y meani ng cal l s f or a f ocus on bot h

t he f act ual commonal i t i es bet ween t he of f enses ( e. g. , t empor al and

geogr aphi cal pr oxi mi t y, t he common cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on, t he

modus oper andi ) and t he i nt ent i ons of al l t he par t i es i nvol ved i n

-13-


14/26

t he t r ansact i ons, i ncl udi ng t he agent s. Mar t i n al l eges t he

di st r i ct cour t devi at ed f r om t hi s supposed or di nar y meani ng by

f ocusi ng t oo nar r owl y on Mar t i n' s i nt ent 8 al one, as wel l as her

"char acter or habi t s. " 9 Because we ar e consi der i ng t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i on of a sent enci ng gui del i ne' s meani ng, our

r evi ew i s de novo. See Carr ero- Hernndez, 643 F. 3d at 349. We

st ar t by taki ng a l ook at t he cases ci t ed by Mar t i n, and r el i ed on

by t he di st r i ct cour t .

El wel l i nvol ved a def endant , Hobar t Wi l l i s, who pl eaded

gui l t y to conspi r acy t o di st r i but e cocai ne under 21 U. S. C. 846,

as wel l as di st r i but i on under 21 U. S. C. 841. 984 F. 2d at 1291. 10

8 Mar t i n vaci l l at es i n her br i ef , usi ng t he phr ases"subj ect i ve i nt ent " and "speci f i c i nt ent " i nt er changeabl y, event hough t he phr ases denot e di f f er ent concept s. I t seems cl ear t o ust hat Mar t i n si mpl y means t o r ef er t o her own i nt ent , i . e. , Mar t i ncl ai ms t he cour t honed i n t oo much on her i nt ent i ons al one.

9 I t i s not ent i r el y cl ear what Mar t i n means by "char act er orhabi t s. " We suspect she i s r ef er r i ng t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' sment i on of her addi ct i on t o i l l egal dr ugs. Assumi ng t hi s i s t hecase, we can r eadi l y di spose of t hi s ar gument . The di st r i ct cour ti ndeed ment i oned Mar t i n' s addi ct i on t o her oi n and her dai l y questt o secur e t he dr ug but t he cour t di d not f ocus on t hese thi ngsdur i ng i t s i nqui r y i nt o whet her t he two pr edi cat e of f enses wer epart of a si ngl e common scheme or pl an. The cour t , i t appear s, wassi mpl y comment i ng on how t he common scheme or pl an concept can bedi f f i cul t t o appl y t o habi t ual dr ug user s who, i n some i nst ances,are const ant l y schemi ng t o obt ai n more dr ugs. A whol e r eadi ng oft he cour t ' s deci si on makes cl ear t hat Mar t i n' s addi ct i on di d not

pl ay a r ol e i n t he cour t ' s ul t i mat e det er mi nat i on t hat t her e was noagr eement bet ween Mar t i n and Duquet t e t hat a second deal woul df ol l ow.

10 El wel l di scussed t he appeal s of t hr ee def endant s: Davi dEl wel l , Ri char d Mor et t o, and Hobar t Wi l l i s. Al l t hr ee had beeni ndi ct ed, al ong wi t h si x ot her per sons, f or conspi r i ng t o

-14-


15/26

The di st r i ct cour t sentenced hi mt o 210 mont hs' i mpr i sonment under

t he car eer of f ender gui del i nes due t o f i ve pr i or f el ony convi ct i ons

on hi s r ecor d f or f i ve bank robber i es commi t t ed on di f f er ent dat esdur i ng a br i ef per i od of t i me i n 1968. I d. at 1292, 1294. At

sent enci ng, Wi l l i s had ar gued unsuccessf ul l y t hat t he pr i or bank

r obber i es shoul d be t r eat ed as a si ngl e f el ony convi ct i on because,

among ot her t hi ngs, t hey "were par t of a common pl an t o rob banks. "

I d. at 1294- 95. He r equest ed an evi dent i ar y hear i ng at whi ch

f el l ow bank robber s woul d t est i f y as t o t hi s common pl an, i f hi s

pr of f er of t he f act s was not accept ed. I d. at 1295. The di st r i ct

cour t di d not accept Wi l l i s' s pr of f er , decl i ned t o hol d an

evi dent i ar y hear i ng, concl uded t he bank robber y convi ct i ons wer e

separ at e of f enses, and sent enced Wi l l i s as a car eer of f ender . I d.

On appeal , we f ound that t he def endant ' s prof f er t hat t he

f i ve bank r obber i es wer e par t of an over ar chi ng conspi r acy was not

i mpl ausi bl e, hel d t he di st r i ct cour t coul d not si mpl y i gnor e i t ,

and r emanded t he case wi t h speci f i c i nst r uct i ons f or r e- sent enci ng.

I d. at 1296. Our di scussi on of "a si ngl e common scheme or pl an" i n

El wel l was br i ef , gi ven t hat t he r el evant i ssue on appeal was

l i mi t ed t o whet her t he di st r i ct cour t coul d di sr egar d t he

def endant ' s pr of f er and deny hi s r equest f or an evi dent i ar y

di st r i but e cocai ne and ot her r el at ed of f enses. See El wel l , 984F. 2d at 1291. Both Wi l l i s and Moret t o had been sent enced as car eerof f enders, but t he i ssue of "a common scheme or pl an" was onl ydi scussed i n r egar ds t o Wi l l i s' s appeal . See i d. at 1294- 97.

-15-


16/26

hear i ng. However , we di d i ndi cat e t hat " t he ' common scheme or

pl an' l anguage shoul d be gi ven i t s or di nar y meani ng. " I d. at 1295.

Per t i nent t o our cur r ent di scussi on, El wel l of f er s not hi ng mor et han an unremarkabl e remi nder of t he common adage of st at utory

const r uct i on t o gi ve wor ds t hei r or di nar y meani ng.

The second case Mar t i n hangs her hat on i s Godi n, 489

F. 3d at 431. I n Godi n, def endant J enni f er Godi n pl eaded gui l t y t o

obst r uct i ng commerce by r obbery under 18 U. S. C. 1951( a) , and to

usi ng and car r yi ng a f i r ear m, i ncl udi ng br andi shi ng the weapon

dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o t he r obber y, under 18 U. S. C.

924( c) ( 1) ( A) ( i i ) . 489 F. 3d at 433. She was sent enced as a car eer

of f ender t o 262 mont hs i n pr i son because of t wo pr i or convi ct i ons

f or t he bur gl ar i es of t wo di f f er ent apar t ment s i n t he same

bui l di ng. I d. at 434. The bur gl ar i es had been commi t t ed si x days

apar t and wer e bot h mot i vat ed by a desi r e f or r evenge. I d. at 434-

35, 436. I n bot h i nst ances, Godi n "knew t he vi ct i m, had some

gr i evance, ki cked i n t he apar t ment door and st ol e var i ous i t ems. "

I d. at 435. Godi n ar gued t hat gi ven t hese f act ual commonal i t i es,

both bur gl ar i es shoul d be consi dered par t of a common scheme or

pl an. I d. at 436. The di st r i ct cour t di sagr eed. I d.

Taki ng up Godi n' s cl ai ms on appeal , we acknowl edged t hat

t he concept of a si ngl e common scheme or pl an i s a "vague" one,

whi ch l acked a " f or mal t est . " I d. But a f r amewor k di d not

-16-


17/26

compl et el y el ude us. We r ei t er at ed El wel l ' s di ct at e t hat "t he

' ordi nary meani ng' of t he phr ase ' si ngl e common scheme or pl an'

shoul d be used. " I d. ( ci t i ng El wel l , 984 F. 2d at 1295) . Doi ng so,we hel d t hat a "scheme or pl an i mpl i es some ki nd of connect i ve

t i ssue l i ke an i ni t i al pl an encompassi ng mul t i pl e act s or a

sequence of st eps t o a si ngl e end. " Godi n, 489 F. 3d at 436 ( ci t i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. J oy, 192 F. 3d 761, 771 ( 7t h Ci r . 1999) ) . Thi s

meant ( f or Godi n) t hat "bur gl ar i es of t wo di f f er ent apar t ment s

commi t t ed by one act or several days apar t need[ ed] somethi ng more

t han r esembl ance of mode or mot i ve even i f t hat were rel evant . "

I d. We concl uded t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was cor r ect i n

det er mi ni ng t hat , despi t e t he f act ual commonal i t i es, Godi n' s t wo

bur gl ar i es wer e not par t of a si ngl e common scheme or pl an. I d.

The r el evant l aw sket ched, we t urn t o Mar t i n' s cont ent i on t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t empl oyed a st andar d t hat di d not compor t wi t h El wel l

and Godi n. Si mpl y sai d, she i s wr ong.

Al t hough Godi n does not set a hardl i ne st andard t o work

wi t h, i t does pr ovi de us gui dance. From Godi n, we know t hat

f actual commonal i t i es between of f enses ar e not enough t o support a

cont ent i on t hat t he of f enses were par t of a si ngl e common scheme or

pl an. Af t er al l , t he of f enses at i ssue i n Godi n - - t wo pr i or

bur gl ar i es of di f f er ent apar t ment s i n t he same bui l di ng - - wer e

r i ddl ed wi t h f act ual commonal i t i es, i ncl udi ng t he same mot i ve f or

-17-


18/26

vengeance, yet we pl aced l i t t l e wei ght on t hem. Rat her , somet hi ng

mor e i s needed. That i s pr eci sel y what t he di st r i ct cour t r equi r ed

her e.Keepi ng i n mi nd t he "or di nar y meani ng" di ct at e, t he

di st r i ct cour t l ooked f or somet hi ng over and above t angi bl e

si mi l ar i t i es bet ween t he pr edi cat e cr i mes and i t r easonabl y

concl uded t hat , t o consi der mul t i pl e dr ug t r ansact i ons as par t of

a si ngl e common scheme or pl an, " t he ser i es of t r ansact i ons ha[ d]

t o be agr eed t o at t he out set . " Accor di ngl y, t he di st r i ct cour t

f ocused i t s i nqui r y on "whet her t he second cr i me was ant i ci pat ed

and pl anned when t he or i gi nal cr i me was pl anned or commi t t ed. "

I ndeed nei t her El wel l or Godi n t ook pr eci sel y t hi s same t ack, but

t hat i s not di sposi t i ve. As we expl ai ned, det er mi ni ng what

const i t ut es a common scheme or pl an i s an i mpr eci se sci ence at

best . See Godi n, 489 F. 3d at 436. What i s i mpor t ant i s t he

exi st ence of a so- cal l ed "connect i ve t i ssue, " such as "an i ni t i al

pl an encompassi ng mul t i pl e act s or a sequence of st eps t o a si ngl e

end. " I d. The di st r i ct cour t , honi ng i n on Mar t i n' s i nt ent , 11

l ooked f or a connect i ve t i ssue - - t hat i s, whet her Mar t i n had l ai d

11 Per haps t he di st r i ct cour t coul d have been mor e cl ear aboutt he f act t hat i t s i nqui r y was di r ect ed at whet her Mar t i n, asopposed t o t he MDEA agent s, had ant i ci pated or pl anned t he Oct ober2001 of f ense when the September 2001 of f ense was pl anned orcommi t t ed. That i t was not , however , i s i nconsequent i al . Whi l enot expr essed i n so many wor ds, t he si ngl e common scheme or pl ant he di st r i ct cour t was l ooki ng f or was t hat of t he def endant ' s.

-18-


19/26

an i ni t i al pl an t o conduct mul t i pl e dr ug deal s wi t h Duquet t e or , at

t he ver y l east , cont empl at ed j ust such a t hi ng happeni ng. Thi s

appr oach makes sense and i s consi st ent wi t h both El wel l and Godi n.Fur t her mor e, some of our si st er ci r cui t s have r ead t he phr ase

"si ngl e common scheme or pl an" pr eci sel y as t he di st r i ct cour t di d

her e. See Uni t ed St at es v. J oy, 192 F. 3d 761, 771 ( 7t h Ci r . 1999) 12

( hol di ng t hat "because t he terms ' scheme' and ' pl an' ar e wor ds of

i nt ent i on, . . . cr i mes are par t of a si ngl e common scheme or pl an

onl y i f t hey wer e j oi nt l y pl anned or when one cr i me woul d nor mal l y

ent ai l t he commi ssi on of t he ot her " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. I r ons, 196

F. 3d 634, 638 ( 6t h Ci r . 1999) ( same) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Robi nson,

187 F. 3d 516, 520 ( 5t h Ci r . 1999) ( same) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Chapni ck, 963 F. 2d 224, 227 n. 5 ( 9t h Ci r . 1992) ( same) ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Char t i er , 970 F. 2d 1009, 1016 ( 2d Ci r . 1992)

( f i ndi ng t hat " t he t er m ' si ngl e common scheme or pl an' must have

been i ntended to mean somet hi ng more than si mpl y a repeat ed pat t ern

12 I n J oy, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t consi der ed whet her a t hef tconvi ct i on and a decept i ve pr act i ces convi ct i on wer e rel at ed under 4A1. 2( a) ( 2) as part of a si ngl e common scheme or pl an. 192 F. 3dat 770- 72. The cour t hel d t hat i t i s f or t he def endant t o show "hei nt ended t o commi t bot h cr i mes f r om t he out set or he i nt ended t ocommi t one cr i me whi ch necessar i l y i nvol ved commi t t i ng the ot her . "

I d. at 771. The f act t hat t wo cr i mes have t he same modus operandi ,ar e cl ose i n t i me, or ar e si mi l ar i n nat ur e does not mean t hesecr i mes ar e r el ated as part of a si ngl e common scheme or pl an. Seei d. Accor di ng t o t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , t he "t est i s one ofsi ngul ar i t y, not si mi l ar i t y. " I d. Of not e, Mar r er o, 299 F. 3d at656, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t case r el i ed on by t he di st r i ct cour t ,ci t ed J oy f avor abl y.

-19-


20/26

of cr i mi nal conduct " and t hat t he concept i nvol ves "subj ect i ve as

wel l as obj ect i ve el ement s") .

I n t he end, Mar t i n' s ar gument t hat she shoul d not be thespot l i ght of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s scrut i ny get s her nowher e. The

di st r i ct cour t ' s f ocus on whet her Mar t i n pl anned or cont empl at ed

her second of f ense at t he t i me of her f i r st was not over l y nar r ow

as Mar t i n suggest s; r at her i t was i n accor d wi t h our case l aw and

l aw f r om ot her ci r cui t s as wel l . I t was al so appr opr i at e f or t he

cour t t o cent er i n sol el y on Mar t i n' s pl ans and desi gns. I ndeed a

dual f ocus on t he i nt ent i ons of Mart i n and t he MDEA agent s ( as

advocat ed f or by Mart i n on appeal ) makes l i t t l e sense. The

oper at i ve i nqui r y her e i s whet her Mar t i n' s cr i mes shoul d be count ed

as one or as t wo f or pur poses of her sent enci ng. The onl y per son

whose i nt ent i ons ar e r el evant t o t hat i nqui r y i s Mar t i n. Af t er

empl oyi ng t he requi si t e de novo r evi ew, we concl ude the di st r i ct

cour t appl i ed a pr oper st andar d.

C. Whether a Single Common Scheme or Plan Existed

Our determi nat i on as t o t he st andard empl oyed by t he

di st r i ct cour t does not however br i ng our anal ysi s t o an end ;

Mart i n has a back- up cont ent i on. She says that under any st andard

- - even t he di st r i ct cour t ' s pur por t ed "hei ght ened" one - - t he

cour t er r ed i n f i ndi ng no common scheme or pl an. Our assessment of

Mar t i n' s cl ai med er r or i s def er ent i al . To t he ext ent t hat she

-20-


21/26

di sput es t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act , we r evi ew onl y f or

cl ear er r or . See Car r er o- Her nndez, 643 F. 3d at 349. Si mi l ar l y,

we gi ve due def er ence t o t he cour t ' s appl i cat i on of t he Gui del i nes

t o t he f act s. See Gr ei g, 717 F. 3d at 217. We st ar t by sayi ng a

l i t t l e mor e about t he di st r i ct cour t ' s hol di ng.

Rel yi ng on El wel l and Godi n, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat

t he September 2001 of f ense and the Oct ober 2001 of f ense were not

par t of a common scheme or pl an because, notwi t hst andi ng the f act

t hat both of f enses s t emmed f r om t he same l aw enf orcement

i nvest i gat i on, " t her e was no agr eement wi t h Ms. Mar t i n at t he f i r st

deal t hat a second one woul d f ol l ow. " Accor di ng t o t he di st r i ct

cour t , " t o squeeze mul t i pl e dr ug t r ansact i ons i nt o a ' common scheme

or pl an, ' t he ser i es of t r ansact i ons has t o be agr eed t o at t he

out set . " I n Mar t i n' s case, i t f ound t he Oct ober 11t h deal was a

separ at e t r ansact i on, ar r anged t hr ough a di f f er ent suppl i er , "whi ch

was not pl anned, di scussed, or cont empl at ed at t he f i r st

t r ansacti on. "

Mar t i n' s mai n qui bbl e i s wi t h t he cour t ' s f act ual f i ndi ng

t hat t her e was no agreement bet ween her and Speci al Agent Duquet t e

r egar di ng a second t r ansact i on. She cl ai ms t he r ecor d evi dence, i n

par t i cul ar Speci al Agent Car r ' s13 evi dent i ar y hear i ng t est i mony and

hi s MDEA r epor t , est abl i shes t hat t her e was i n f act an ar r angement

13 To remi nd t he r eader , Speci al Agent Car r was an MDEA agentwho was i nvol ved i n t he Hancock Count y i nvest i gat i on t hat l ed t oMar t i n' s 2001 convi ct i ons.

-21-


22/26

bet ween her and Duquet t e at t he t i me of t he September 27t h dr ug

deal t hat a second t r ansact i on woul d f ol l ow. Mar t i n poi nt s t o t he

f ol l owi ng t est i mony. On di r ect exami nat i on by def ense counsel ,

Speci al Agent Car r was asked whether t here was any cont act between

Mart i n and Speci al Agent Duquet t e af t er t he Sept ember 27t h

pur chase. Car r r esponded i n t he af f i r mat i ve and, when asked t o

el abor at e, he st at ed: "Af t er t he i ni t i al pur chase f r om Ms. Mar t i n

on - - i n t he end of September , we had Agent Duquet t e pl ace a phone

cal l t o Ms. Mar t i n and ar r angement s t o make - - t o make another

pur chase. " We f ai l t o see how t hi s t est i mony suppor t s t he not i on

t hat a second deal was di scussed or cont empl ated, much l ess agr eed

t o by Mart i n, bef ore or dur i ng the commi ss i on of t he Sept ember 2001

of f ense.

Car r ' s t est i mony expl i ci t l y st at es i t was not unt i l af t er

t he i ni t i al pur chase t hat Speci al Agent Duquet t e was i nst r uct ed t o

cal l Mar t i n t o ar r ange a second deal . Despi t e Speci al Agent Car r ' s

unambi guous t est i mony, Mar t i n t hi nks one can i nf er t hat a phone

cal l was i n f act made on or near Sept ember 27t h. For support she

poi nt s out t hat not onl y di d a subsequent deal ul t i mat el y f ol l ow,

but Duquet t e showed up r i ght bef ore Mart i n got of f work on Oct ober

11t h, whi ch ( accor di ng t o Mar t i n) i mpl i es t hat Duquet t e was awar e

of Mar t i n' s wor k schedul e. Mar t i n' s hypot hesi s t hat t he cal l

happened on or about Sept ember 27t h i s cer t ai nl y pl ausi bl e but ,

unf or t unat el y f or her , t her e ar e equal l y pl ausi bl e compet i ng

-22-


23/26

i nf er ences. Per haps Duquet t e di d not cal l Mar t i n unt i l t he mor ni ng

of Oct ober 11t h ( or even a coupl e days bef ore) at whi ch t i me

ar r angement s were made f or Duquet t e t o meet Mar t i n at t he end of

her shi f t . Or , al so concei vabl e, i s a scenar i o i n whi ch Duquet t e

- - knowi ng Mart i n' s work schedul e based on i nf ormat i on gathered by

sur vei l l ance - - never cal l ed Mar t i n and si mpl y sur pr i sed her i n

person on t he 11t h. There i s no need t o ki ck ar ound any more

possi bi l i t i es. A di str i ct cour t ' s pl ausi bl e i nt er pr et at i on of t he

f act s cannot be r ej ect ed on cl ear er r or r evi ew j ust because t he

r ecor d mi ght sust ai n a conf l i ct i ng i nt er pr et at i on. See I n r e

O' Donnel l , 728 F. 3d at 45. Car r ' s t est i mony does not hel p Mar t i n.

Speci al Agent Car r ' s MDEA r epor t f or t he Sept ember 2001

of f ense, whi ch Mar t i n al so dr aws our at t ent i on t o, pr ovi des no

bet t er suppor t . She cl ai ms t he MDEA r epor t , whi ch was wr i t t en

af t er t he Sept ember her oi n pur chase but bef or e t he Oct ober one, i s

pr oof of an exi st i ng agr eement . Mar t i n r el i es on t he f ol l owi ng

l anguage f r om t he r epor t : "Duquet t e . . . woul d be act i ng i n an

undercover capaci t y as a buyer of heroi n and woul d be i nt r oduced t o

Mar t i n f or f ut ur e dr ug t r ansact i ons wi t hout t he use of a

[ conf i dent i al i nf or mant ] . " Thi s al so does not hi ng f or Mar t i n' s

cause. I t i n no way est abl i shes that Mar t i n her sel f agr eed t o,

pl anned, or consi der ed a second dr ug t r ansact i on at t he t i me of t he

f i r st . Rat her what i t does show i s t he MDEA' s pl an t o t r y and

engage wi t h Mar t i n i n f ut ur e her oi n pur chases. What t he di st r i ct

-23-


24/26

cour t l ogi cal l y l ooked f or was t he def endant ' s i nt ent i on t o engage

i n addi t i onal cr i mes as par t of a l ar ger scheme or pl an. The f act

t hat Mar t i n was t ar get ed by a si ngl e l aw enf or cement i nvest i gat i on

i s i r r el evant t o her i nt ent t o commi t mor e t han one of f ense wi t h

Duquet t e. 14

Not onl y does t he evi dence ci t ed by Mar t i n ( Car r ' s

t est i mony and t he MDEA r epor t ) f ai l t o convi nce, but ot her evi dence

bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t wor ks agai nst her . For one, t her e was

Speci al Agent Duquet t e' s r epor t f or t he Sept ember 2001 of f ense.

Thi s ver y det ai l ed t wo- page r epor t chr oni cl es t he event s t hat

t r anspi r ed on Sept ember 27, 2001, but does not ment i on, or even

hi nt at , anot her t r ansact i on wi t h Mar t i n bei ng i n t he wor ks. Al so

i n f r ont of t he di st r i ct cour t was Speci al Agent Ral ph Br i dges' s

r epor t r egar di ng t he Oct ober 2001 of f ense. 15 Accor di ng t o t hi s

r eport , Speci al Agent Duquet t e "was goi ng t o at t empt t o make

14 Ther e i s somewhat cont r adi ct or y evi dence r egar di ng theMDEA' s pl an goi ng f orward af t er Sept ember 27t h. Carr , at onepoi nt , t est i f i ed t hat t he pl an was act ual l y t o t r y and get Mar t i nout of t he pi ct ur e. He t est i f i ed t hat Speci al Agent Duquet t e, onSept ember 27t h, spoke wi t h Ri chardson di r ect l y about get t i ng moreher oi n. Car r expl ai ned t hat t hey wer e t r yi ng t o get Mar t i n out oft he f r ay and deal wi t h Ri char dson di r ect l y. As Car r sai d, t het ypi cal pr act i ce of t he agent s was t o " t r y t o f i nd t he sour ce" and"cut out t he mi ddl eman, " i . e. , Mar t i n. Thi s evi dence i s of no hel p

t o Mar t i n and not i mpor t ant t o our anal ysi s. For one, i t cut sagai nst Mar t i n' s t heor y t hat a second deal was i n t he wor ks. Butmor e i mpor t ant l y, as we sai d, our f ocus i s on t he def endant ' si nt ent i ons and not l aw enf or cement ' s.

15Speci al Agent Br i dges was par t of t he MDEA survei l l ance teami nvol ved i n t he Sept ember 27 and Oct ober 11 t r ansact i ons.

-24-


25/26

cont act wi t h Ni col e Mar t i n" on Oct ober 11, 2001 ( emphasi s added) .

Br i dges' s r epor t f ur t her st ates t hat when Duquet t e appr oached

Mar t i n f or mor e her oi n, Mar t i n st at ed she "di d not have anythi ng

r i ght now, but t o come back i n an hour , and she coul d hel p [ Speci al

Agent ] Duquet t e out t hen. " That Duquet t e was goi ng t o "at t empt " t o

cont act Mar t i n on Oct ober 11t h, and t hat Mar t i n di d not have

"anyt hi ng" - - be i t her oi n or a suppl i er - - i n pl ace when t he t wo

met cut s agai nst Mar t i n' s cl ai m t hat she and Duquet t e had

pr evi ousl y agr eed t o meet f or a second dr ug t r ansact i on. I f

anyt hi ng can be i nf er r ed, i t i s t hat Mar t i n was caught of f - guar d by

Speci al Agent Duquet t e' s Oct ober vi si t .

I n addi t i on t o t he dear t h of evi dence t endi ng t o suppor t

t he exi st ence of an agr eement f or - - or expect ancy of - - a second

t r ansact i on, t her e was other evi dence bol st er i ng t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat Mar t i n' s t wo pr i or convi ct i ons wer e not

r el ated by a si ngl e common scheme or pl an. Namel y, t here i s a

var i et y of f act ual di ssi mi l ar i t i es bet ween t he Sept ember 2001

of f ense and t he Oct ober 2001 of f ense. The dr ug deal s occur r ed i n

t wo di f f er ent t owns, t wo weeks apar t . Mar t i n obt ai ned t he dr ugs

f r omdi st i nct sour ces, whomeach char ged di f f er ent amount s f or t he

drugs. The means by whi ch Mar t i n her sel f was compensat ed were al so

at odds. I n connect i on wi t h t he f i r st deal , her payof f was a bag

of her oi n. For t he second deal , i t was $50 cash.

-25-


26/26

Gi ven t he above, we have no t r oubl e concl udi ng t hat t here

i s enough evi dence on t he r ecor d t o sust ai n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

f act ual f i ndi ng t hat Mar t i n had not agr eed t o, pl anned, or

ant i ci pat ed t he Oct ober 2001 of f ense pr i or t o or dur i ng t he

commi ssi on of t he Sept ember 2001 of f ense. Thi s i s a pl ausi bl e

i nt er pr et at i on of t he f act s; we wi l l not second- guess i t .

Mor eover , t he di st r i ct cour t di d not cl ear l y er r when i t det er mi ned

t hat Mart i n' s t wo of f enses were not part of a si ngl e common scheme

or pl an and t heref ore shoul d be count ed separatel y. There was

ampl e r ecor d suppor t f or t hi s concl usi on, as chr oni cl ed above. The

di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y sent enced her as a car eer of f ender pur suant

t o 4B1. 1( a) of t he Gui del i nes.

IV. CONCLUSION

We ar e mi ndf ul t hat our r ul i ng r esul t s i n Mar t i n

r ecei vi ng a si gni f i cant l y l onger sent ence than she woul d have had

she not been sent enced as a car eer of f ender . The r esul t i s

unquest i onabl y unf or t unat e f or Mar t i n. That bei ng sai d, t her e i s

si mpl y no mer i t t o her cl ai ms of er r or . For t he af or ement i oned

r easons, we af f i r m.

-26-

united states v. martin, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents