United States v. Abdul Aziz Shabazz, A/K/A Lewis Alvin Hayes, A/K/A Alvin Hayes, A/K/A Isiah Simmons Abdul Aziz Shabazz
Docket: 99-5807
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; December 3, 2000; Federal Appellate Court
Abdul Aziz Shabazz, also known by several aliases, appealed his classification as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, which mandates increased sentences for individuals with prior convictions for certain crimes, including controlled substance offenses. The case, decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, centers on whether Shabazz's prior state conviction for employing a juvenile in a drug distribution ring qualifies as a controlled substance offense.
Shabazz pled guilty to conspiring to possess heroin with intent to distribute and to possessing a counterfeit security. A probation officer's presentence report classified him as a career offender based on his age at the time of the offense, the nature of the controlled substance offense, and two prior felony convictions: one for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and the other for employing a juvenile in drug distribution. Additionally, Shabazz had a robbery conviction.
At sentencing, the defense contested the inclusion of the juvenile employment conviction as a controlled substance offense, likening it to solicitation, and challenged the robbery conviction's validity. Despite these objections, the District Court upheld the career offender classification, resulting in an adjusted offense level of 29 and a criminal history category of VI, leading to a sentencing range of 151-188 months. The court ultimately sentenced Shabazz to two concurrent terms of 72 months after a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. The appeals court affirmed the District Court's decision, concluding that the prior conviction was properly classified under the guidelines.
The parties agree that the first two prongs of § 4B1.1 are met, leaving the determination of whether Shabazz's state conviction for employing a minor in the distribution of a controlled substance qualifies as a predicate controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. A "controlled substance offense" is defined as an offense under federal or state law, carrying a potential prison sentence of over one year, which involves the illegal handling of controlled substances. The sentencing court must first examine the statute of conviction's language; if clear, it should not consider anything beyond the statute's text. If the statute is ambiguous or overly broad, the court may investigate further, including looking at judicially noticeable facts and documents that clarify the nature of the conviction.
In cases where a defendant could have been convicted under multiple theories, the court must discern which offense type supported the conviction by reviewing the charging documents and jury instructions. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Hernandez is pertinent; it addressed whether convictions for possession with intent to distribute could be considered controlled substance offenses for enhancement purposes. Hernandez's plea did not clarify whether his convictions were for purchasing or selling controlled substances, as the statute prohibited both actions. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that while the District Judge incorrectly considered arrest affidavits, the court could look beyond the statute’s language to ascertain the nature of the offense. It instructed on remand that the District Court should utilize accessible court documents, like plea agreements and presentencing reports, to determine the eligibility of prior convictions as predicate offenses under § 4B1.1.
When classifying a criminal statute as a controlled substance offense, the sentencing court must determine if the conduct leading to conviction aligns with controlled substance activities as defined by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). Specifically, it must assess whether the offense involved the manufacture, distribution, or possession of controlled substances. In the case of Williams, the court established that a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) for using communication facilities in drug-related felonies qualifies as a controlled substance offense if it demonstrates facilitation of those activities.
The statute in question here is "Employing a Juvenile in a Drug Distribution Scheme," which penalizes individuals over 18 who employ minors to violate drug laws. Both parties agree that Shabazz's conviction involved facilitating the distribution of controlled substances. However, Shabazz argues that his act constituted solicitation, which he claims is not classified as a controlled substance offense. He references United States v. Dolt, where solicitation was not recognized as a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines.
The court must consider whether Shabazz's actions fall under solicitation or the enumerated offenses in § 2C:35-6. Notably, New Jersey law does not recognize solicitation as a separate offense, instead categorizing it as a criminal attempt under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:5-1. Solicitation is defined as merely asking or enticing someone to commit a crime, based on the Model Penal Code. Thus, if Dolt applies, Shabazz's conduct must be examined within this framework to determine its classification.
In Williams, the court declined to apply the Dolt standard to convictions under § 843(b) and left unresolved whether solicitation convictions could be classified as controlled substance offenses. The New Jersey statute involved in this case criminalizes multiple acts related to exploiting a juvenile in drug distribution, including using, soliciting, directing, hiring, or employing a juvenile. Despite potential ambiguity regarding whether mere solicitation qualifies as a controlled substance offense, other actions specified in the statute, such as employing or directing a juvenile, clearly do qualify.
The specifics of Shabazz's conduct were detailed in the presentence report and the state court's denial of post-conviction relief. Evidence showed that Shabazz was observed by police conducting drug sales, with a 17-year-old juvenile acting as a lookout during the sale of cocaine. This evidence indicates that Shabazz's actions went beyond solicitation, as he actively involved others, including a juvenile, in drug distribution, qualifying as a controlled substance offense. Consequently, the District Court's judgment was affirmed.
Notably, all citations refer to the 1998 United States Sentencing Guidelines in effect at Shabazz's sentencing, which stipulate criteria for determining a career offender. Additionally, the District Court acknowledged a basis for concluding Shabazz was convicted of second-degree robbery. The Guidelines also allow for sentence departures if the defendant provides substantial assistance to authorities. Shabazz did not dispute the probation officer's account of his conduct.
