United States v. Duane Fields, Jr.

539 F. App'x 776
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 28, 2013
Docket12-30315
StatusUnpublished

This text of 539 F. App'x 776 (United States v. Duane Fields, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Duane Fields, Jr., 539 F. App'x 776 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

1. The quantity of cocaine subjecting Fields to increased penalties for his con *777 spiracy conviction was properly “charged in the indictment, submitted to the jury, subject to the rules of evidence, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558, 568 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc); see also Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2155, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). The 439 grams found on his person and in his trailer, together with the other evidence of the conspiracy’s drug-dealing activities, was ample to support the jury’s special verdict that the conspiracy involved at least 500 grams. See United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900, 923 (9th Cir.2009).

2. Fields’s acquittal on the firearm charge didn’t preclude the sentencing judge from considering the gun in applying a two-level enhancement. See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157, 117 S.Ct. 633, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997) (per curiam). Fields didn’t prove it was “clearly improbable” that his gun possession was connected to his crimes, so the enhancement was properly applied. United States v. Ferryman, 444 F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir.2006); see also U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n. 11.

3. Application of the managerial role enhancement to Fields’s sentence was also proper. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). He twice sent others to deliver cocaine. Even if these were the only times Fields exerted control over others, they qualify him for the aggravating role enhancement. See, e.g., United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Watts
519 U.S. 148 (Supreme Court, 1997)
United States v. Jose Alfredo Maldonado, AKA Chino
215 F.3d 1046 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Calvin Wayne Buckland
289 F.3d 558 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Lee Murray Ferryman
444 F.3d 1183 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Alleyne v. United States
133 S. Ct. 2151 (Supreme Court, 2013)
United States v. Reed
575 F.3d 900 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
539 F. App'x 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-duane-fields-jr-ca9-2013.