United States v. Yates

98 F.4th 826

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Allen YATES and Shawn Thomas Connelly, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 22-2994

No. 23-1461

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Argued January 8, 2024

Decided April 11, 2024

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Nos. 4:20-cr-40017-7 & 4:20-cr-40017-4 — Sara Darrow, Chief Judge.

W. Scott Simpson, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Springfield, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ruth F. Masters, Attorney, Masters Law, Oak Park, IL, for Defendant-Appellant Christopher A. Yates in No. 22-2994.

Lisa Lundell Wood, Attorney, Gair Gallo Eberhard, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant Shawn Thomas Connelly in No. 23-1461.

Before Wood, Scudder, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.

St. Eve, Circuit Judge.

Christopher Yates and Shawn Connelly appeal their sentences following convictions for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. Both challenge the district court's finding that the conspiracy involved at least 737.1 grams of "ice" methamphetamine, meaning methamphetamine that was at least 80% pure. Yates argues that the government failed to meet its burden of proving the purity of all that methamphetamine, having only tested a small, unrepresentative amount. Connelly asserts that the court should not have relied on his coconspirators' statements to calculate the total drug weight, and that the full weight was not reasonably foreseeable to him.

We vacate Yates's sentence and remand. The Guidelines allow district courts to engage in some degree of estimation when determining drug quantity and purity, but the government must supply reliable evidence making that approximation reasonable. Because we find such evidence lacking here, Yates is entitled to resentencing. We affirm Connelly's sentence.

I. Background

In December 2020, a grand jury indicted Chistopher Yates and Shawn Connelly, along with six coconspirators, on charges of conspiring to distribute at least 50 grams of actual methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 841(b)(1)(C), 846. Connelly also faced a charge of distributing a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C); 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Yates and Connelly pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. The following facts come from the presentence investigation reports ("PSRs") prepared before their sentencings.

The conspiracy operated out of Macomb, Illinois, and lasted thirteen months, from January 2019 to February 2020. Yates supplied its methamphetamine. At first, he purchased the drugs from an unknown source in Joliet, Illinois, with alleged Mexican cartel connections. But law enforcement arrested that supplier sometime around December 2019, forcing Yates to seek out a new source.

Yates would bring the drugs to his home in Macomb and front them to the other members of the conspiracy to distribute. Connelly was among the distributors.

A. Controlled Buys

The government conducted one seizure and nine controlled buys from members of the conspiracy during its investigation. Most of this activity took place over one week in September 2019, when the government executed six controlled buys and obtained more than 144 grams of methamphetamine (out of 158 grams of methamphetamine obtained in total). The government tested five of these samples, amounting to 141.3 grams of methamphetamine, for purity. Each test identified d-methamphetamine hydrochloride with a purity of 99% or above. A table summarizing the seized methamphetamine appears below.

Date Seized

Quantity (g)

Purity

September 19, 2019

3.496

99%

September 20, 2019

2.927

99%

September 21, 2019

17.9

100%

September 21, 2019

110.2

100%

September 23, 2019

3.3

Untested

September 25, 2019

6.8

100%

October 7, 2019

3.5

Untested

October 7, 2019

4

Untested

December 11, 2019

6.1

Untested

January 22, 2020

0.5

Untested

B. Drug Quantities

The PSRs used coconspirator admissions to calculate the total drug weight attributable to the conspiracy. They relied on three statements in particular:

• Amber Phelps's admission that she obtained at least 481.95 grams of methamphetamine from Yates.

• Phelps's admission that she was present three or four times when Yates sold one ounce (28.35 grams) of methamphetamine to an unindicted individual, for a total of at least 85.05 grams of methamphetamine.

• Jeanna Rechkemmer's admission that she received a total of 6 to 12 ounces (170.1 to 340.2 grams) of methamphetamine from Yates over the course of the conspiracy.

Although evidence suggested the conspiracy involved an even greater amount of methamphetamine, the PSRs determined based on these statements that the conspiracy was responsible for conspiring to distribute at least 737.1 grams of "actual" methamphetamine. That calculation resulted in both defendants having a base offense level of 34, which dropped to 31 after taking into account their timely acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(3). Yates's criminal history category (III) led to a Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months' imprisonment. Connelly's criminal history category (IV) produced a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months' imprisonment.

C. Sentencing

1. Yates

The main dispute at Yates's sentencing was the classification of the methamphetamine attributable to him as "ice" or "actual" (i.e., pure) methamphetamine, as opposed to its generic variant, which the Guidelines treat less severely. Yates argued that the government had not met its burden of establishing the purity of all 737.1 grams of methamphetamine involved in the conspiracy since it had only tested 141.3 grams.

The district court rejected that argument and found the tested samples reliably represented the purity of the conspiracy's methamphetamine as a whole. It noted the tested samples came from controlled buys with three different coconspirators, occurred on separate occasions, and involved varying amounts—all of which suggested to the court that the conspiracy was not diluting its methamphetamine.

The district court also relied on the consistency in purity levels between the tested samples, and the fact that they represented a sizeable proportion—nearly twenty percent—of the total amount of methamphetamine attributed to the conspiracy. According to the district court, twenty percent was "an appropriate percentage to have the necessary level of confidence to rely upon the tested substances to be . . . a good representative sample."

Having found Yates responsible for 737.1 grams of "ice" methamphetamine, the district court adopted the PSR's Guidelines calculations. It sentenced Yates to 168 months in prison—the top of his Guidelines range.

2. Connelly

Connelly raised two objections to the PSR at his sentencing hearing. He argued that the court could not rely on the statements of his coconspirators, Amber Phelps and Jeanna Rechkemmer, for purposes of determining the amount of methamphetamine handled by the conspiracy, since they both had admitted to lying in statements to law enforcement. He also contended that the full drug weight attributed to the conspiracy was not reasonably foreseeable to him.

The district court denied both objections. The court concluded that although Phelps and Rechkemmer had admitted to misleading law enforcement, their statements as to drug quantity were reliable because of other corroborating evidence in the record. It further found Connelly's involvement in the conspiracy was such that its entire drug weight was foreseeable to him.

As it had with Yates, the district court adopted the PSR's recommendations in full. It sentenced Connelly to 188 months' imprisonment.

Both defendants appeal their sentences.

II. Analysis

On appeal, Yates again challenges the district court's finding that the methamphetamine attributable to the conspiracy was "ice" methamphetamine. Connelly once more attacks the district court's calculation of the total drug weight attributable to him. Our review of both claims of error is the same. The government must prove facts including drug purity and quantity by a preponderance of reliable evidence. United States v. Moore, 52 F.4th 697, 700 (7th Cir. 2022); United States v. Rollerson, 7 F.4th 565, 570 (7th Cir. 2021). We review a district court's reliability determinations for an abuse of discretion and its factual findings—including drug quantity calculations—for clear error. United States v. Jones, 56 F.4th 455, 506 (7th Cir. 2022); Moore, 52 F.4th at 700.

A. Yates

The Guidelines distinguish between three different variants of methamphetamine: "methamphetamine," "methamphetamine (actual)," and "ice" methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). "Methamphetamine"—what we will call the generic variety—refers to "the entire weight of any mixture or substance containing a detectable amount" of methamphetamine. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Notes to Drug Quantity Table (A). "Actual" methamphetamine refers to the weight of the controlled substance itself contained in the mixture or substance. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Notes to Drug Quantity Table (B). Finally, "ice" methamphetamine "means a mixture or substance containing [methamphetamine] of at least 80% purity." U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Notes to Drug Quantity Table (C).

These variants carry meaningful sentencing consequences. The Guidelines treat quantities of "actual" and "ice" methamphetamine—i.e., any methamphetamine above 80% purity—as ten times the weight of the generic variant. See United States v. Bostock, 910 F.3d 348, 350 (7th Cir. 2018). So, a defendant responsible for 45 kilograms of generic methamphetamine receives the same base offense level as a defendant responsible for only 4.5 kilograms of "ice" or "actual" methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). "In short, purity matters for methamphetamine." United States v. Carnell, 972 F.3d 932, 939 (7th Cir. 2020).

It comes as no surprise then that purity came to the fore during Yates's sentencing. The district court...