United States v. Curtis Copeland

Summary

The Second Circuit held that under Sentencing Guidelines §1B1.3, a district court may consider quantities of drugs not charged in the count of conviction as "relevant conduct" if they were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan. The court affirmed the inclusion of 63 vials of crack in calculating the base offense level for a defendant who pleaded guilty to attempted distribution of only three vials, where the defendant acted as a "steerer" directing buyers to sellers and was prepared to benefit from sales of the entire inventory. The court also rejected a due process challenge, noting the defendant had notice and an opportunity to respond to the information. This case illustrates "real offense" sentencing in narcotics cases and the broad scope of relevant conduct under the Guidelines.

Holdings

1. The district court properly included the 63 vials as relevant conduct because they were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.
2. The consideration did not violate due process because Copeland had notice of the government's intent to seek inclusion of the 63 vials, an opportunity to respond, and was offered the opportunity to withdraw his plea.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in including the 63 vials of cocaine as relevant conduct when calculating Copeland's base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines.
2. Whether consideration of the 63 vials violated Copeland's right to due process.

Disposition

affirmed