United States v. Brian White

Citations: 408 F.3d 399; 2005 WL 1278540Docket: 04-1580

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; July 19, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Brian White pleaded guilty to a thirty-eight count indictment related to drug distribution conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. He received a 340-month prison sentence for the conspiracy count, concurrent sentences for six additional counts, and a consecutive 60-month sentence for firearm possession in connection with drug trafficking. White appeals the sentence on the conspiracy count, raising four issues: 

1. He contends the district court improperly interpreted his guilty plea as an admission of all facts in the indictment, which contributed to an increased sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
2. He challenges the legal standard the district court used to determine the drug quantity attributed to him, claiming the evidence does not support the court's findings on this matter.
3. He argues that the district court erred in relying on his guilty plea to find facts that increased his sentence.
4. He raises a concern regarding the implications of the United States v. Booker decision on his sentencing.

During the plea hearing, White acknowledged that he agreed the government could prove the essential elements of the crime in Count I, but he disputed certain details in the indictment's manner-and-means section, emphasizing that proof of an overt act is not necessary for a conspiracy conviction. The district court initially interpreted his plea as an admission of all indictment details but later appeared to recognize the distinction made by White's counsel, yet still relied on the indictment's facts during sentencing, ultimately affirming the sentence. The court conducted a full-day hearing with testimonies from four witnesses, which influenced its sentencing decision.

Mr. White pleaded guilty to an indictment asserting a conspiracy involving "large amounts" of drugs, with the district judge attributing ten to thirty kilograms of heroin to him. The judge applied a three-level enhancement for Mr. White's role as a leader in the conspiracy, referencing the indictment's manner-and-means section. In assessing Mr. White's criminal history, the judge considered the conspiracy's dates from Count I of the indictment, determining that Mr. White was on unsupervised probation during the conspiracy.

On appeal, Mr. White argues that the district judge improperly relied on his guilty plea to support these conclusions, questioning whether a guilty plea admits all factual allegations in the indictment or only the essential elements of the crime. He advocates for the Ninth Circuit's view that a guilty plea admits only essential elements. However, precedents from his circuit suggest that a guilty plea acknowledges all factual allegations in the indictment.

Previous cases, such as United States v. Eaves and United States v. Johnson, have established that defendants cannot contest facts alleged in the indictment at sentencing. In contrast, Mr. White explicitly disagreed with specific facts in the indictment's manner-and-means section during his plea hearing, akin to the situation in United States v. Morton, where the court ruled that a guilty plea did not encompass disputed allegations. The district judge's interpretation of Mr. White's guilty plea as an admission of those disputed facts contradicts the precedent set in Morton.

The district court's error in considering allegations in the manner-and-means section of Count I during sentencing does not warrant reversal unless it affected Mr. White's substantial rights. The government bears the burden of proving that the error did not impact substantial rights, and it must demonstrate that there is no "grave doubt" about the error's influence on the outcome. In this case, the court finds no "grave doubt" that the judge’s consideration of Mr. White's trafficking in "large amounts" of heroin and cocaine was minor in determining the drug quantity attributed to him, which was at least 12,040 grams, based on credible co-defendant testimony and incriminating evidence.

Additionally, the judge's assessment that Mr. White and Mr. Foston were leaders of the conspiracy played a similarly minor role in the decision to apply a three-level enhancement to his sentence. Although the judge noted the plea could support a four-level enhancement, he ultimately chose the lesser enhancement to treat both defendants equally, indicating that the plea did not substantially affect the outcome.

Moreover, the judge correctly concluded that Mr. White admitted the dates of the conspiracy specified in the indictment when he pled guilty. This admission was based on the indictment's wording, which was not contested at the plea hearing. Consequently, it was appropriate for the judge to assign Mr. White two criminal history points for committing the offense while on unsupervised probation.

Mr. White argues that the district court erred by holding him accountable for more heroin than he personally received, specifically contending that the court should not have included heroin possessed by co-defendant Foston. White pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin and cocaine, and the sentencing guidelines dictate that a defendant can be held responsible for the actions of co-conspirators if those actions were foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The district judge attributed ten to thirty kilograms of heroin to White, based on conservative estimates from co-defendant Chaney, who testified that White and others would meet to divide the heroin. 

Evidence indicated that White and Foston collaborated in acquiring and distributing heroin, and White was present during these transactions, making the attributed amount foreseeable. White challenged the evidentiary basis for the heroin quantity, but the court reviewed the evidence for clear error and found no mistakes. The judge considered Chaney's testimony credible despite concerns about his reliability as a witness, supported by additional testimonies and corroborating recordings that detailed the conspiracy's extent.

White also argued that his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment rights as per the ruling in United States v. Booker, but he did not raise this issue at the district court level. The appellate court determined that he did not demonstrate how any potential error affected his substantial rights. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment. Judge Raymond W. Gruender did not participate in the decision.