10-1085 U.S. v. Isom

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Relevant conduct

The district court properly determined the defendant’s relevant conduct based on hearsay statements of coconspirators.

“Here, the government established that both Rose’s and Coffey’s accounts as recounted in the presentence report were reliable. Reliability can be established by internal consistency, corroborating evidence, and providing missing facts and details. See United States v. Mays, 593 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3340 (2010); United States v. Hankton, 432 F.3d 779, 791 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Thomas, 280 F.3d 1149, 1154 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Galbraith, 200 F.3d 1006, 1013 (7th Cir. 2000). Rose’s testimony at trial was consistent with what she told the officers as recounted in the presentence report. Moreover, the agent testified that when Rose was interviewed, Rose stated that Coffey was ‘a regular customer of Isom’s who would come to her residence frequently to purchase crack cocaine,’ and that ‘after [Rose] kicked Isom out of her residence, Isom began selling crack cocaine from Coffey’s apartment.’ Regarding Coffey, the agent testified that she was an associate of Isom’s. When the agent could not reach Isom for a crack-cocaine delivery, Coffey subbed in and sold the agent cocaine. If Isom wanted to impeach this testimony, Isom could have done so, but he elected not to. See United States v. Schaefer, 291 F.3d 932, 943 (7th Cir. 2002). The court’s reliance on those accounts, corroborated and reinforced by the agent’s testimony, was not clearly erroneous.”

Affirmed.

10-1085 U.S. v. Isom

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McCuskey, J., Rovner, J.

Full Text