Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed Adam Johnson’s conviction and 180-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl. The court held that Johnson failed to preserve his claim that an evidentiary hearing was required before admitting statements made under his plea and cooperation agreements, and that his substantive challenges to those agreements were unavailing. The court also addressed his role enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines and his request for acceptance-of-responsibility credit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court plainly erred by denying Johnson's motions in limine without holding an evidentiary hearing.
- Whether Johnson knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea and cooperation agreements and whether his statements and grand jury testimony were therefore properly admitted after his alleged breach.
- Whether the district court properly applied the four-level organizer-or-leader enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), including by relying on statements from a deceased witness contained in the presentence report.
- Whether Johnson was entitled to a reduction or variance for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 despite proceeding to trial and disputing factual guilt.
Holdings
- The district court did not plainly err by denying Johnson's motions in limine without an evidentiary hearing because Johnson did not preserve a request for such a hearing and did not make a sufficient showing that material facts were genuinely disputed.
- The district court properly denied Johnson's substantive challenges to the plea and cooperation agreements and related statements. Johnson's voluntariness theory was forfeited and waived on appeal, and the record supported the finding that he knowingly entered the agreements.
- The district court properly applied the four-level organizer-or-leader enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). At sentencing, the court could rely on sufficiently reliable out-of-court statements in the presentence report, including the deceased witness's grand jury testimony, when Johnson had notice and an opportunity to challenge reliability.
- The district court did not clearly err in denying Johnson a formal reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Although cooperation may be considered, it does not guarantee an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, and proceeding to trial while disputing factual guilt presumptively weighs against the reduction absent unusual circumstances.
Key quotations
“"During a sentencing hearing, neither the Federal Rules of Evidence nor the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause applies," though a court must be mindful to comply with "due process considerations and the parameters of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32."” (22-23)
“This adjustment is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse. Conviction by trial, however, does not automatically preclude a defendant from consideration for such a reduction.” (26-27)
“While "proceeding to trial creates a rebuttable presumption" against an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, we have previously held that a defendant may still receive credit for acceptance of responsibility "in unusual circumstances."” (27)
Factual background
Johnson was arrested in New Hampshire in 2018 after police found 53 grams of heroin and he provided information about drug distributors. He thereafter worked as a DEA confidential source, entered plea and cooperation agreements, made proffers, and testified before a grand jury about fentanyl and heroin distribution. Johnson ultimately declined to plead guilty and proceeded to trial, where he was convicted of a fentanyl-distribution conspiracy. At sentencing, the district court relied on trial testimony, the presentence report, and statements from a deceased coconspirator to apply an organizer-or-leader enhancement and denied an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, while granting a below-Guidelines variance in recognition of some cooperation.
Procedural history
Johnson initially cooperated with the DEA and signed plea and cooperation agreements requiring him to plead guilty and permitting the government to use certain statements in the event of breach. After repeatedly scheduled plea hearings were continued, Johnson elected to proceed to trial. The district court denied his motions in limine, admitted the challenged statements, convicted him after a jury trial, applied a four-level organizer-or-leader enhancement, denied an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 180 months. The First Circuit affirmed the verdict and sentence.