United States v. Mark Alan Wilson, Also Known as Lame

Citation: 49 F.3d 406Docket: 94-2404

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; April 18, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mark Alan Wilson was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana, and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He was sentenced to 168 months in prison, five years of supervised release, and a $150 special assessment. Wilson appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for his conviction and incorrect determination of his base offense level based on plant counts instead of harvested weight. 

The case involved a large-scale marijuana operation in northern Minnesota from 1989 to 1991, during which Wilson and others relocated from southeastern Ohio to purchase farms for marijuana cultivation. In 1991, law enforcement discovered five marijuana farms and arrested four individuals tending the plants. A total of over 5,000 marijuana plants were found, and six accomplice witnesses testified against Wilson, outlining his significant role in growing and distributing marijuana. 

Scott Dennis, a key witness and Wilson's longtime associate, testified that he financed Wilson's purchase of a farm in 1989 under a false identity and that Wilson profited from the marijuana crops. Additionally, George Williams corroborated Dennis’s account, detailing Wilson's involvement in the cultivation and oversight of marijuana plants on multiple farms during 1989 and 1990. Evidence indicated that Wilson helped plant and harvest thousands of marijuana plants and played a central role in the operation's logistics. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Wilson testified in his defense, denying any intentional involvement in a marijuana growing and selling conspiracy. He recounted his past betting activities for Dennis during their college years, specifically mentioning four trips to Las Vegas, the last of which resulted in a significant financial loss for Dennis due to Wilson's inability to place the bets as directed. Wilson claimed Dennis threatened him violently, which instilled fear for his family's safety. Dennis allegedly suggested that Wilson could repay his debt by assisting in the illegal smuggling of cigarettes into Canada. Although Wilson purchased a farm, he argued it was related to the cigarette operation, stating he never stayed overnight there and had no knowledge of any marijuana activities, learning about the operation only when the Sebeka farm was seized in 1991.

In assessing Wilson's claim of insufficient evidence, the court emphasized that it must view the evidence favorably for the government and can only reverse if no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury, rather than the reviewing court, determines witness credibility. Six accomplice witnesses testified against Wilson, detailing his involvement in the conspiracy's planting and harvesting activities, corroborated by law enforcement's findings in 1991. Although Wilson argued the accomplices' testimonies were motivated by plea agreements and provided alternative explanations for his actions, the court found the evidence sufficient to uphold the jury's conviction.

Regarding sentencing, Wilson contested the district court's use of plant count estimates instead of harvested weight to determine his base offense level, which was set at 34 based on an estimated 3,000 to 10,000 marijuana plants. Wilson argued the court did not clarify whether its findings were based on the Presentence Report or specific trial testimony concerning the quantity of marijuana.

A district court's determination of the quantity of drugs linked to a defendant at sentencing is only overturned if found to be clearly erroneous. The court reviews the application of sentencing guidelines to case facts de novo. In Wilson's case, the district court relied on the presentence investigation report (PSR), which indicated over 4,000 marijuana plants attributed to him, supported by trial testimony. The PSR recommended a base offense level of 34 based on these findings, which were not deemed clearly erroneous.

Wilson argued that the district court improperly applied the plant count conversion for sentencing instead of using the weight of the harvested marijuana, claiming this approach unjustly broadened the conversion principle. This argument was rejected, following precedent from the Seventh Circuit, which held that a defendant could be sentenced based on plant count even if the marijuana had been harvested and processed prior to law enforcement intervention, provided the defendant was involved in cultivation. The guidelines aim to impose harsher penalties for offenses involving marijuana plants to address drug-related issues.

Evidence supported Wilson's involvement in planting and cultivating marijuana, justifying the application of the plant count conversion. Consequently, the district court's sentencing decision was affirmed, with the court declining to reassess witness credibility or fact-finding on appeal, confirming that sufficient evidence supported Wilson's conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Murphy did not participate in this case, while Judge Shaw sat by designation.

Wilson's base offense level was set at 34 by the district court due to the attribution of 3,000 to 10,000 marijuana plants, applying the one kilogram per plant conversion under Sec. 2D1.1(c) of the sentencing guidelines. Wilson contended that the court did not clarify its basis for determining the plant quantity, claiming it was unclear whether the decision relied on the presentence investigation report (PSR) or trial testimony. The court's findings regarding drug quantity are not overturned unless clearly erroneous, and its application of sentencing guidelines is reviewed de novo. 

The district court adopted the PSR's factual findings, which indicated over 4,000 marijuana plants attributed to Wilson, supported by trial testimony, and concluded that his base offense level should be 34. Wilson's argument regarding the source of the plant count was dismissed as the court clearly referenced the PSR. Additionally, Wilson argued that the conversion from plant count to weight was improperly applied since the marijuana had been harvested and sold prior to law enforcement's involvement. This argument was countered by referencing precedents, specifically United States v. Montgomery, which ruled that sentencing could be based on plant counts despite processing, as the defendant's involvement in cultivation warranted such application. The guidelines aim to impose stricter penalties for offenses involving marijuana plants, aligning with Wilson's significant participation in the cultivation process.

Evidence confirms that the offender engaged in the planting, cultivation, and harvesting of marijuana plants, making the application of the drug weight conversion under Sec. 2D1.1(c) appropriate. The district court's sentencing of Wilson under this guideline was thus correct. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Judge Murphy did not participate in this case, while Judge Shaw presided by designation. Wilson's adjusted base offense level was set at 36, reflecting a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice due to his incredible testimony regarding the marijuana operations, which the court deemed material to the case. The drug quantity table specifies that for offenses involving 50 or more marijuana plants, each plant is treated as equivalent to 1 kilogram of marijuana.