10-3103 & 10-3205 U.S. v. McKenzie

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Drug quantity

Where the defendants agreed with an undercover agent to rob a fictitious stash house and were told the house usually had more than 20 kilograms of cocaine, it was not error for the district court to use that figure at sentencing in determining the drug quantity involved.

“The defendants argue that we should adopt an ‘agreed upon quantity’ standard in determining the amount of drugs for which a conspirator may be held liable at sentencing. However, the ‘reasonably foreseeable’ standard is well-established and we decline to stray from it. They also argue that the district court (1) failed to articulate the applicable legal standard when it ruled on the drug quantity attributable to the defendants and (2) failed to conduct an individual assessment of whether the drug quantity was foreseeable to each defendant. These arguments are wholly without merit. At Barber’s sentencing hearing, the district judge clearly referenced ‘reasonable foreseeability as to [the amount of drugs]’ the defendants expected to find at the stash house. Given that both defendants have acknowledged their participation in conversations where the quantity of drugs at the fictitious stash house was discussed, there is nothing unique to effect either defendant’s understanding of the scale of the plan to consider.”
Affirmed.

10-3103 & 10-3205 U.S. v. McKenzie

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kendall, J., Bauer, J.

Full Text