02-3373 & 02-3383 -- United States of America v. Charles Williams Hopkins, Appellant (Cross-Appeals)
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
(October 6, 2004; afternoon docket)
SUMMARY OF ORAL ARGUMENT
The public defender argued that the government did not properly sentence his client. The public defender argued that his client did not have a major role in the crime, thus the sentence imposed under the sentencing guidelines was inaccurate. When sentencing the defendant, the district court made its own findings of fact rather than relying on the jury's findings. In fact, after the United States Supreme Court decision from Blakely, the court was forced to reconsider the defendant’s sentence. Knowing that this Supreme Court decision was a problem in this case, the judges wanted to know how the public defender wanted them to rule. Should they send the case back for new jury findings on drug quantities? The public defender had a difficult time answering this question and never really explained to the judges how he wanted them to rule in this case in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Blakely.
The government argued that even if Blakely applied, the sentence enhancement would still stand because the sentence was based on conduct the defendant admitted under oath. The government did admit that if Blakely does apply in this case, then there will be problems with the sentence enhancement. The government suggested that if Blakely did apply, then there should be another jury to decide the drug quantity.
INFORMAL CASE SUMMARY
Please Note: This informal case summary is not intended for official use and does not purport to be exhaustive of the issues or defenses presented by the parties.
Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 121 months followed by three years of supervised release.
On appeal, defendant argues the district court erred in increasing his base offense level under § 2D1.1(b)(1) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines for possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. He claims there was no evidence that he possessed a firearm or that a firearm was connected to the drug conspiracy. The defendant also argues that the court erred in increasing his offense level under § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice (destroying evidence). He claims he had no knowledge of a drug investigation involving, or the arrest of, his brother and another individual.
On cross-appeal, the Government argues the district court erred in adjusting downward by 12 levels the defendant's offense level based on defendant's proportional involvement in the conspiracy because the court employed an improper methodology in arriving at the quantity of methamphetamine for which defendant was accountable.
