James F. Atkins appeals a 150-month prison sentence and 4 years of supervised release imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri after pleading guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute. Atkins contends that the district court erred in calculating the drug quantities attributed to him and in applying a firearm enhancement. The Eighth Circuit Court affirms the district court's judgment, citing appropriate jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3231 and 18 U.S.C. 3742(a), with a timely notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).
The case background includes the arrest of Sterling Shiflett and his wife for narcotics violations, leading to the discovery of a methamphetamine lab at their residence. James Deal purchased methamphetamine from Shiflett and subsequently introduced him to others involved in manufacturing methamphetamine, including Mike Atkins, James’s brother. The operation moved to various locations, including a motel in Kearney, Missouri, where methamphetamine production occurred. Mike Atkins was arrested in July 1998 with methamphetamine and lab items. His cooperation with authorities followed, as the methamphetamine operation continued with multiple participants, including James Atkins, who was involved in several manufacturing instances, each producing approximately 42 grams of methamphetamine. The police later recovered additional drugs from a motel room linked to Mike Atkins, leading to his arrest.
James Atkins, along with Schreckhise, Ware, and others, was present during Mike Atkins' arrest but was not arrested himself at that time. On September 1, 1998, police found methamphetamine manufacturing items in Schreckhise's trash, leading to a search warrant for his residence. During a traffic stop that evening involving Schreckhise's vehicle, where James Atkins was a passenger, officers discovered a concealed handgun and a day planner containing methamphetamine formulas. Schreckhise was arrested for the weapon, while James Atkins was cited for an open container. The following day, a search of Schreckhise's home revealed no drugs but some drug paraphernalia; James Atkins and others present were not arrested.
In mid-September 1998, Schreckhise moved to a camper near James Atkins's mother’s property and began manufacturing methamphetamine with Atkins's assistance. After Mike Atkins's arrest for methamphetamine-related offenses, he informed police about Schreckhise's illicit activities at the National Additives grain mill. Observations of the mill led to a traffic stop of Schreckhise and James Atkins on October 19, 1998, resulting in the recovery of methamphetamine and manufacturing items from the mill.
In late November 1998, after Schreckhise was burned during a meth cooking incident, James Atkins assisted him to the hospital. During Schreckhise's recovery, Deal and Atkins continued meth production at Schreckhise's direction. Their partnership ended due to a falling out between November 1998 and January 1999. On December 29, 1998, Schreckhise was arrested with a meth lab discovered in his vehicle. In January 1999, both Schreckhise and Atkins relocated to a campground. Multiple arrests followed, culminating in a March 2, 1999, indictment of James Atkins and others for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine from September 1, 1997, to January 21, 1999, along with additional charges for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute. James Atkins pled guilty to both counts without a plea agreement.
After accepting Atkins's plea, the district court instructed the probation officer to create a preliminary Presentence Report (PSR), to which Atkins objected. His objections led to revisions, including a reduction of his criminal history category from V to III and a change in the conspiracy participation timeline to August 1998 through December 1998. The PSR held Atkins accountable for all activities within the conspiracy scope during this period and for acts he committed or reasonably foresaw that furthered the conspiracy.
It concluded that the actual seizures underestimated the methamphetamine attributable to Atkins and based its drug quantity estimates on statements from cooperating co-defendants, estimating a conservative production rate of 77 grams per week, totaling 1,386 grams from August to mid-December 1998. The PSR cited U.S.S.G. 2D1.1, indicating a base offense level of 32 for quantities over 500 grams but less than 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine. It recommended a two-level increase due to the possession of a firearm by a co-conspirator, Schreckhise, as per U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) and 2D1.1(b). The report argued that firearms found in Schreckhise's vehicle were foreseeable and related to the conspiracy, noting that he regularly carried a gun.
The PSR suggested a total offense level of 34, applying a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a) and a further one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b)(2), resulting in a final offense level recommendation of 31. Atkins contested the PSR's findings, claiming his involvement with methamphetamine ceased by late November or early December 1998, asserting he should be responsible for approximately 495 grams, reflecting a weekly quantity of around 45 grams. He also disputed the firearm enhancement, stating he was unaware of Schreckhise carrying a firearm during a prior arrest on September 1, 1998.
Atkins argued that the only evidence suggesting he possessed weapons in his camper came from a co-conspirator, and even if weapons were present, there was no link to drug activities. He contended that his total offense level should be 27, placing him in criminal history category II, with a corresponding sentencing range of 78 to 97 months. During the February 2, 2000, sentencing hearing, witnesses Deal and Ware testified about observing Atkins and others manufacturing methamphetamine in Liberty, Missouri. Deal noted that from July to September 1998, Atkins was frequently involved in cooking meth, yielding approximately seven to eight 'eight balls' (3.5 grams each) per session. Ware corroborated this, stating he had seen Atkins at the Liberty residence multiple times and later at a campground where further meth production occurred, estimating a total of 392 grams manufactured based on his observations. A drug enforcement officer confirmed that, according to witness testimonies, Schreckhise likely produced around 800 grams of meth during that period and highlighted the purchase of meth by Shirley Holtzclaw from Schreckhise. Additionally, the officer discussed weapons recovered during traffic stops involving Schreckhise and Atkins. The district court concluded that the Presentence Report (PSR) correctly classified the drug quantity as between 500 and 1,500 grams and applied a two-level enhancement for weapon possession, asserting that Atkins was sufficiently connected to Schreckhise's activities. Ultimately, Atkins's total offense level was set at 31, with a criminal history category of III, resulting in a 150-month prison sentence for both counts, to be served concurrently, along with four years of supervised release. Atkins appealed, claiming errors in drug quantity calculation and the firearm enhancement application.
James Atkins appeals the district court's determination of the drug quantity attributed to him and the corresponding base offense level. He argues he should be accountable for less than 500 grams of methamphetamine, conceding to assisting in the production of 495 grams, which results in a base offense level of 30. Atkins challenges the weight given to testimony from Deal, suggesting it was speculative compared to that of Ware, who had witnessed more drug production. The legal standard for reviewing sentencing guideline applications is de novo, while findings of fact regarding drug quantities are reviewed for clear error. The government must prove the attributed drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. The district court is required to resolve objections to the presentence report (PSR) and can rely on it if the facts are undisputed. The base offense level for drug offenses is determined by the quantity of drugs linked to the defendant, considering all acts during the commission of the conspiracy. A defendant convicted of conspiracy is liable for all reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators. The district court correctly attributed drug quantities to Atkins based on the broader conspiracy, as he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, and his co-conspirators provided relevant information about drug transactions. The court is also permitted to approximate drug quantities when actual seizures do not reflect the offense's scale.
The district court found that Atkins's drug-related activities were part of a conspiracy and either known or foreseeable to him, adhering to the requirements established in Brown. A defendant in a drug conspiracy is liable for all contraband within the scope of the conspiracy that he could reasonably foresee. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, when a defendant disputes factual accuracy in the Presentence Report (PSR), the court must either make a finding on the contested matter or determine it irrelevant. The Sentencing Guidelines allow the court to consider reliable information when resolving such disputes. The court based its conclusions about the quantity of methamphetamine attributable to Atkins on testimonies from co-conspirators Deal and Ware. Deal's testimony suggested a much higher amount than 500 grams, while Ware provided a narrower definition of the cooking process. Ultimately, the district court accepted the PSR's recommendation that Atkins was responsible for 77 grams per week over 18 weeks. The court has broad discretion regarding the information it considers during sentencing, including uncharged criminal activities and hearsay, as long as the defendant can contest it. The credibility of witness assessments by the court is also nearly unreviewable. The testimony presented supported the finding that Atkins was responsible for producing over 500 grams of methamphetamine, and thus the court's calculation for his base offense level was not clearly erroneous. Additionally, Atkins contested the enhancement of his base offense level due to a co-conspirator’s firearm possession. An enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) can only be overturned if clearly erroneous, with the government bearing the burden of proof demonstrating the firearm's presence and its connection to the drug charge.
In United States v. McCracken, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision regarding an upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) for drug trafficking offenses. The court established that constructive possession of a firearm is sufficient for this adjustment, and ownership of the weapon or the premises is not required. Evidence indicated that Atkins was present in a vehicle where a firearm and materials related to methamphetamine manufacturing were found, demonstrating a temporal and spatial relationship between the firearm and his drug-related activities. Testimony revealed that Atkins had a close association with Schreckhise, who was involved in the conspiracy, and that Atkins had been present at locations where methamphetamine was being produced. The court concluded that it was reasonably foreseeable for Atkins to anticipate Schreckhise's possession of the firearm in furtherance of their conspiracy. The findings related to drug quantity and firearm possession were deemed not clearly erroneous, leading to the affirmation of the district court's judgment.
