USA v. Edwards, Willie Document 17

Filed December 2, 1996

BackBack to USA v. Edwards, Willie, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Case No. 96-2467

Filed 15c appellee's brief by USA. [96-2467] [896600-1] (nanc)

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1 This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized
by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the
information in books and make it universally accessible.
https://books.google.com
Page 2 IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2467
Appeal from the United States
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Hammond
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Division
V.
WILLIE EDWARDS
)
No. 2:92 CR 113
U.S.
Cir
cui
C
t
F.A. - th
I
L
Honorable Rudy Lozano
E
D
Defendant-Appellant.
TH
DOC #
.
BRIEF OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
Jon E. DeGuilio
United States Attorney
Daniel L. Bella
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Hammond Division Main Street, Suite A
Dyer, Indiana 46311
(219) 322-8576
Attorneys for the Appellee
ED
ST
RU
GG
L
.
DEC
AS F
OM
CLE
RK
Page 3
Page 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..

..
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ARGUMENT

I.
The sentencing Court made adequate findings, supported by the evidence,
when it held Edwards accountable for the entire quantity of narcotics dealt
.. 8
by the conspiracy .
II .
The evidence adequately supports the sentencing Court's factual
determinations that Edwards was involved in every part ofthe drug
trafficking organization , and that Edwards ' participation began before
February, 1989 .
A.
The evidence adequately supports the sentencing Court's
factual determinations that Edwards was involved in every
part of the drug trafficking organization .
B.
The evidence adequately supports the sentencing Court's
factual determination that Edwards ' participation in the
drug trafficking organization began before February, 1989. ...

CONCLUSION
!
i
Page 5
Page 6 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
United States v . Edwards, 77 F.3d 968 (7th Cir . 1996), remanded for resentencing
U.S. S.Ct. 2543,
on other grounds, Edwards v. United States,
L.Ed.2d 1064 ( 1996) . .
United States v . Edwards , 945 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir. 1991 ) , cert . denied Martin v
United States, 503 U.S. 973 , 112 S.Ct. 1590 , 118 L.Ed.2d 308 , ( 1992 ) and
cert. denied Hampton v. United States, 503 U.S. 973 , 112 S.Ct. 1590 , L.Ed.2d 308 ( 1992) ..
, 12
United States v . Flores , 5 F.3d 1070 (7th Cir. 1993 ) , cert . denied , Flores v . United
, 12
States, 510 U.S. 1074 , 114 S.Ct. 884 , 127 L.Ed.2d 79 ( 1994)

United States v . Hatchett, 31 F.3d 1411 (7th Cir. 1994)
United States v . Taylor, 72 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 1995)
, 10
United States v. Garcia, 66 F.3d 851 ( 7th Cir . 1995)

!
ii
Page 7
Page 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2467
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V.
WILLIE EDWARDS ,
Defendant -Appellant .
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
BRIEF AND APPENDIX OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The Jurisdictional Statement of the Appellant is not complete and correct .
This is a direct appeal from a criminal conviction following a jury trial in Federal District
Court. Appellant, Willie Edwards, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of using a communication facility to facilitate the
commission of a narcotics trafficking felony in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843 (b) . The District Court
had jurisdiction over this federal criminal prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 .
The Appellant was sentenced on May 28, 1996, and judgment was entered on May 30 ,
. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on June 5 , 1996. This Court has jurisdiction over
this appeal from final judgment and sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. §
.
Page 9
Page 10 ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
I.
When the District Court determined as a result of its application of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3
(relevant conduct) that Edwards was accountable for the quantity of narcotics attributed
to the entire conspiracy, did the Court make an adequate finding that the scope of the
criminal activity jointly undertaken by Edwards encompassed the quantity of narcotics
attributed to the entire conspiracy?
II .
Did the District Court err in its factual determinations that Edwards was involved in every
part of the drug trafficking organization, and that Edwards ' participation began before
February, 1989?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant, defendant Willie Edwards , appeals from his conviction and sentence as a result
of a jury trial for the crimes of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute
heroin and cocaine, and use of a communication facility to facilitate the commission of a narcotics
trafficking felony.
On August 20, 1992 , a federal grand jury for the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, sitting in Hammond , Indiana, returned a 39 count indictment against 15
defendants , among them Willie Edwards . Edwards proceeded to a jury trial conducted February
through 25 , 1994 , and was ultimately convicted of the two counts upon which he was tried ,
one count (Count 3 ) of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin and
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count (Count 18) of use of a communication
facility to facilitate the commission of a narcotics trafficking felony, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
(b) . After a change of defense counsel , and after several evidentiary sentencing hearings , the
District Court sentenced Edwards on May 30 , 1996 to terms of imprisonment of 324 months on
Count 3 and 96 months on Count 18 , to be served concurrently. On June 5 , 1996 , Edwards
Page 11
Page 12 timely filed his notice of appeal and proceeded with this appeal . Edwards is incarcerated pending
this appeal .
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
A.
Lee Edwards drug trafficking organization .
Lee Edwards was the leader of a major drug trafficking organization in the City of Gary,
Indiana . (Tr . 233 ) ¹ Appellant Willie Edwards is the nephew of Lee Andrew Edwards.² (Tr. 417 ;
Lorri 6)
The organization sold drugs out of several locations, and dealt primarily in black tar or
brown heroin, white heroin, and cocaine . (Tr. 233-234)
'This brief includes references to several different sources of factual authority including the
transcript of the trial , transcripts of two of the sentencing hearings held on different dates ,
transcripts of testimony from the Lee Edwards trial which were referred to and relied upon during
the Willie Edwards sentencing proceedings , the presentence report, transcripts of tape recordings
of telephone conversations introduced into evidence at Willie Edwards' trial, and a transcript of a
tape recording of a telephone conversation introduced into evidence at Lee Edwards ' trial which
was referred to and relied upon during the Willie Edwards sentencing proceedings . Transcript
references used in this brief are as follows : "Tr. " refers to the Willie Edwards trial transcript ;
"Lorri" refers to the transcript of Lorri Edwards ' testimony at the Willie Edwards sentencing
hearing held on February 23 , 1996 ; "Balbo " refers to the transcript of DEA Special Agent Vince
Balbo's testimony at the Willie Edwards sentencing hearing held on December 20, 1995 ; “PSI"
refers to the presentence investigation report ; and "A-" refers to the appendix attached to the
government's brief.
'This brief discusses three members of the Edwards family, appellant Willie Edwards , Lee
Andrew Edwards, and Lorri Edwards . Where this brief uses the name "Edwards" only, that refers
to appellant Willie Edwards . Where the brief refers to Lee Andrew Edwards, the brief refers to
him as Lee Andrew Edwards , Lee Edwards , or Lee . Where the brief refers to Lorri Edwards, the
brief refers to her as Lorri Edwards, or Lorri . One should also note that appellant Willie
Edwards ' name on the indictment and on the caption of many of the transcripts appears as "Willie
Edwards , Jr. " , while appellant has pursued the appeal in the name of Willie Edwards . Willie
Edwards and Willie Edwards , Jr. , wherever those names appear throughout the record and the
briefs in this case, for purposes of this prosecution and appeal refer to one and the same
individual .
Page 13
Page 14 1.
Sources of supply.
Lee used a Chicago source, Raymond Davis , as a source of supply of black tar or brown
heroin, and a Nigerian, Abiodun Agbele, as a source of supply of white heroin . (A-7 to A- 12 ; A-
) .
Raymond Davis was a supplier of brown heroin (and some white heroin) for the drug
trafficking organization . (Balbo 6)
Davis supplied the organization with heroin from 1988 to
. (Balbo 8 ) Lee Edwards or members of his organization would go to Chicago to pick up
the supply of narcotics from Davis . (Balbo 8-9) However, Lee normally relied on other
individuals to obtain narcotics from his sources of supply and transport the narcotics back to him .
In this manner, Lee would insulate himself from possible exposure . (Tr. 244)
Abiodun Agbele supplied exclusively white heroin to the drug trafficking organization .
The white heroin that Agbele supplied came from Nigeria, and Agbele delivered the white heroin
to the organization on a few isolated dates . Agbele delivered the white heroin directly to
Edwards ' residence . (A- 16 to A- 19) .
.
Distribution .
Lee obtained narcotics from his sources of supply, cut the narcotics at his residence with a
cutting agent , and then had street dealers distribute the narcotics . (Tr. 243-245 ) Lee did not
distribute the drugs on the street himself; rather, he relied on others to sell the drugs at street
level . (Tr . 243-244) There were several methods that Lee used to sell the narcotics at street
level.
!
Page 15
Page 16 a.
Workers.
The Lee Edwards drug trafficking organization sold drugs out of an apartment building on
Grant Street , and a liquor store known as the Black Horseman at 10th and Virginia Streets . (Tr.
) Lee had "workers" sell drugs out of the apartment building .
(Tr. 411-412 ) The most
common size bag of drugs sold was a $ 10.00 bag, although the workers also sold $25.00 bags.
Lee's arrangement with the workers was that the worker could keep $2.00 to $ 3.00 out of each
bag sold, and the rest of the money would go to Lee. A record was kept of how many bags the
workers were responsible for . (Tr. 412-413 , 418 ) One of the record books of narcotics supplied
to the organization's workers for distribution was seized during a search of one of Lee and Lorri
Edwards' residences .
(Tr. 413-414)
b.
Runners .
Lee maintained two different residences, at 460 Taft Place, and at 1522 Taft Street, and he
would move back and forth between the two residences . Drugs were sold out of both residences .
(Tr. 411 )
Lee normally used other individuals to answer the phone, take the drug orders over the
phone, and run the drugs out to the customers at various agreed upon locations outside the
residence. (Tr. 243-244 ; A-3 to A-4)
C.
Independent contractors .
A couple individuals would obtain a large supply of drugs from Lee, and then would sell
the drugs out of their own locations . Lee would refer drug customers who would call Lee's
residence to these other individuals . The individual answering Lee's phone would give drug
customers the phone numbers of these other individuals, and instruct the customers to call them .
(A-4 to A- 5)
Page 17
Page 18 3.
Termination of the Lee Edwards drug trafficking organization .
On October 11 , 1990, Lee Edwards ' residence at 460 Taft Place in Gary, Indiana was
searched pursuant to a federal search warrant . (Tr. 212) The search was the culmination of a
lengthy investigation into the Lee Edwards drug trafficking organization . (Tr. 232) Lee was
arrested at the residence the day of the search . (Tr. 216) The search terminated the activities of
the Lee Edwards drug trafficking organization . (Balbo 7)
B.
Willie Edwards' involvement in the Lee Edwards drug trafficking organization .
Lorri Edwards was Lee Edwards ' wife . (Tr . 405 ; Lorri 6)
Lorri Edwards married Lee Edwards on March 16, 1986. (Lorri 6) At the time Lorri
married Lee Edwards, Willie Edwards was incarcerated in prison on a State of Indiana criminal
conviction. (Lorri 6-7 ; PSI 6 , ¶24) Willie Edwards was released from prison on February 24 ,
. (Lorri 32-33 ; PSI 6, ¶ 24)
After his release from prison, Willie Edwards started visiting Lee and Lorri Edwards '
residence to obtain drugs for personal use . Eventually, however, Willie Edwards started picking
up bags of drugs to be sold . (Lorri 8)
Willie Edwards began selling drugs out of the apartment building owned by Lee Edwards
and located at 6th and Grant Streets . (Tr . 417 ; Lorri 9) Willie Edwards' activity in selling drugs
from the apartment building began less than a year after his February 24 , 1987 release from
prison. (Lorri 10-11 )
The narcotics record book seized from Lee Edwards ' residence contains the names of
several of Lee Edwards ' workers in it . Some pages of the book contain records for Willie
Edwards . On one page in particular, for example , the book reflects that on March 7 , 1990 , Willie
Page 19
Page 20 Edwards received 100 dime, or $ 10.00 bags of white heroin, 30 $ 10.00 bags of brown heroin, and
$ 10.00 bags of cocaine . (Tr . 418-421 )
Willie Edwards also sold drugs out of the Black Horseman liquor store . (Lorri 10 , 23-24)
He sold somewhat larger quantity bags from the liquor store, mostly $25 or $ 50 bags . (Lorri 27)
By the time of the search in October of 1990 , Willie Edwards had moved in with Lee and
Lorri Edwards , and stayed with them at both residences . (Tr. 422) At the residences , Willie
Edwards would answer the phone, take drug orders over the phone, and deliver the drugs to the
drug customers . (Tr. 421-422 ; Lee 908) The drug trafficking operation switched back and forth
between the residences at 1522 Taft Street and 460 Taft Place in Gary, Indiana, and Edwards
performed these activities at both residences . (Tr. 447-449)
On occasion, Willie Edwards would help mix the drugs and package them in the individual
packets for sale . (Tr. 468)
Willie Edwards referred drug customers to Flakes Kellum and James Davis to obtain
drugs , and Willie Edwards gave out Kellum's and Davis ' phone numbers to the drug customers .
(A-4 to A- 5)
Willie Edwards was one of the individuals who would periodically travel to Chicago to
pick up supplies of heroin from Raymond Davis . (Balbo 8-9)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The government first of all argues that the sentencing Court made more than adequate
findings regarding the credibility of witnesses, regarding the facts established by the credible
evidence regarding Edwards' participation in the conspiracy, and regarding the scope of Edwards '
Page 21 Digitized by Google
Page 22 agreement and the foreseeability to Edwards of the quantity of narcotics dealt with respect to
Edwards ' participation in the conspiracy .
The government secondly argues that the evidence adequately supports the sentencing
Court's factual determination that Edwards was involved in every part of the conspiracy, making
the entire quantity of narcotics dealt by the conspiracy during the time period of Edwards '
participation in the conspiracy attributable to Edwards . The government further argues that the
evidence adequately supports the sentencing Court's factual determination that Edwards '
participation in the conspiracy began before February, 1989, making the entire quantity of
narcotics that the government established with regard to the conspiracy since that date attributable
to Edwards .
ARGUMENT
I.
The sentencing Court made adequate findings, supported by the evidence , when it
held Edwards accountable for the entire quantity of narcotics dealt by the
conspiracy.
Edwards accurately sets forth the standard of review. (Appellant's brief, p . 9)
The court has recently repeated the long standing principle that a participant in a narcotics
conspiracy may be held accountable for more than just the quantity of narcotics personally dealt
by that participant :
Section 1B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines requires the district court to
consider " relevant conduct " when calculating a defendant's base offense level .
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 . The court must consider, not just the criminal conduct with
which the defendant was charged , but " all acts and omissions ... that were part of
the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of
conviction . " U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 ( a) (2) . " [ I ] n a drug distribution case, " according to
the Guidelines Commentary, " quantities and types of drugs not specified in the
count of conviction are to be included in determining the offense level if they were
part of the same course of conduct or part of a common scheme or plan as the
Page 23
Page 24 count of conviction. " U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt . 10. Thus, for example, the district
court in this case was required to consider, not just the approximately 100 grams
of cocaine involved in Demski's " offense of conviction" (attempted possession with
intent to distribute cocaine on February 13 , 1993 ) , but the entire amount of
cocaine involved during the period in which the Taylor conspiracy was active.
One who participates in "jointly undertaken criminal activity, " whether or not
charged may be held accountable for the reasonablyforeseeable acts of his
co-conspirators if those acts were committed in furtherance ofthe conspiracy.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, Application Note 2; United States v. Savage, 891 F.2d 145 , (7th Cir.1989) .
United States v. Taylor, 72 F.3d 533 , 541 ( 7th Cir. 1995 ) [ emphasis added ] . The principle that a
defendant who participated in a narcotics conspiracy may be held accountable for the quantity of
narcotics dealt by the conspiracy is tempered by the requirement that the narcotics dealt were
"reasonably foreseeable " to the defendant :
The Guidelines require district courts to sentence a criminal conspiracy defendant
on the basis of all acts committed by the defendant for which the defendant " would
be otherwise accountable. " U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 . Application Note 1 defines
conduct for which a defendant " would be otherwise accountable " as " conduct of
others in furtherance of the execution of the jointly-undertaken criminal activity
that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant . " U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 , comment .
(n. 1 ) ( emphasis added) .
Reasonable foreseeability refers to the scope of the agreement that
Fontanez entered into when he joined the conspiracy, not merely to the drugs he
may have known about .
Cir. 1991 ) , cert . denied ,
United States v. Edwards, 945 F.2d 1387 , 1403 (7th
U.S. S.Ct. 1590 , 118 L.Ed.2d 308 ( 1992) .
United States v. Flores, 5 F.3d 1070 , 1082-83 (7th Cir. 1993 ) , cert. denied Flores v. United
States , 510 U.S. 1074 , 114 S.Ct. 884 , 127 L.Ed.2d 79 ( 1994) . However, it is not enough for the
sentencing court to reiterate the above standard and then announce a conclusion that the
defendant is accountable for all the narcotics dealt by a conspiracy . The sentencing court must
make an " individualized inquiry ... in order that the defendant is sentenced only on the basis of a
conspiracy that was reasonably foreseeable to him ... setting forth the reasons why the particular
Page 25
Page 26 amount of drugs was reasonably foreseeable to him, with reference to the evidence before the
court . " United States v. Edwards, 945 F.2d 1387 , 1399 (7th Cir. 1991 ) , cert . denied Martin v.
United States, 503 U.S. 973 , 112 S.Ct. 1590 , 118 L.Ed.2d 308 ( 1992 ) and cert . denied Hampton
v . United States , 503 U.S. 973 , 112 S.Ct. 1590 , 118 L.Ed.2d 308 ( 1992) .
" Before concluding
that a given quantity of drugs was foreseeable for sentencing purposes, the district judge should
make clear that he has considered the evidence of the individual defendant's agreement to join a
conspiracy of the scope alleged by the government . " Id . Compare, for example, United States v.
Edwards, supra, where the court found that the evidence indicated the defendant had joined a
larger conspiracy " less than two months before federal agents arrested the defendants " [ 945 F.2d
at 1400 ] ; with United States v . Taylor, supra, where the court approved of sentences imposed by
the sentencing court where the sentencing court held individual defendants accountable for
different quantities of narcotics based upon the length of time they were involved in the
conspiracy [ 72 F.3d at 542 ] . Also see United States v . Flores, supra, wherein the court found that
the sentencing judge complied with Edwards by making a statement on the record in support of its
determination regarding the quantity of narcotics attributable to the defendant . In Flores , the
sentencing court indicated on the record , " I do find by a preponderance of the evidence that " the
defendant " was a knowledgeable conspirator with respect to the scope of the activities " among
other primary co- conspirators " at least as early as August 1990 " . The court also set forth some of
the evidence regarding the activities that the defendant undertook in furtherance of the
conspiracy . United States v . Flores, supra , 35 F.3d 1070 at 1083 .
Edwards first of all argues that the Court failed to make adequate findings regarding the
scope of his agreement to participate in the conspiracy . Edwards therefore appears to at least
Page 27
Page 28 initially attack , not the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Court's findings regarding the
quantity of narcotics attributable to Edwards, but rather the absence of any clear findings at all
regarding the scope of Edwards ' agreement . Edwards in his formulation of the first issue raised
alleges that the Court "failed to make a finding as to the scope of the criminal activity jointly
undertaken by the defendant" . (Appellant's brief, p . 9) In his argument, Edwards once again
argues that , “The District Court, in sentencing the Defendant Willie Edwards, skipped completely
the inquiry as to the scope of the criminal activity jointly undertaken by the defendant .”
(Appellant's brief, p . 10) Again, in his argument, Edwards argues, "The Court did not make any
findings as to the scope of the defendant's relevant conduct which was in furtherance of the illegal
acts of the co- conspirators , whose conduct the Court has attributed to the Defendant for purposes
of establishing his base offense level . " (Appellant's brief, p . 11 )
The Court, on the contrary, made detailed findings regarding the credibility of witnesses
(Appendix to Appellant's brief, p . 5) , the facts established regarding Edwards ' participation in the
conspiracy (Appendix to Appellant's brief, pp . 5-7) , and the scope of the Edwards ' agreement and
the foreseeability to Edwards ofthe quantity of narcotics dealt by the conspiracy (Appendix to
Appellant's brief, p . 7) . In particular with regard to the scope of the Edwards ' agreement and the
foreseeability to Edwards of the quantity of narcotics dealt by the conspiracy, the Court found as
follows :
the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was a
knowledgeable co- conspirator with respect to the scope of activities .
The defendant was involved in every part of the organization during his
two-and-a-half year involvement, and the amount of drugs distributed by the
organization was foreseeable by the defendant and , therefore, he is accountable for
the total amount of drugs .
Page 29 Digitized by Google
Page 30 (Appendix to Appellant's brief, p . 7)
In the instant case the sentencing Court did not blindly announce its conclusion that
Edwards was accountable for the entire quantity of narcotics dealt by the conspiracy, without
further justification, as prohibited by United States v . Edwards, supra . Rather, the Court made
detailed findings regarding the credibility of the evidence, the extent of Edwards ' participation in
the conspiracy , and in particular the reasonable foreseeability to Edwards of the quantity of
narcotics dealt by the conspiracy, as approved by United States v. Flores , supra . The sentencing
Court made specific and adequate findings in pronouncing its sentence .
II .
The evidence adequately supports the sentencing Court's factual determinations
that Edwards was involved in every part of the drug trafficking organization , and
that Edwards ' participation began before February, 1989 .
In order to calculate Edwards' base offense level, the sentencing Court had to determine
the quantity of narcotics attributable to Edwards . To accurately calculate that quantity, the Court
made certain factual determinations, including the extent of Edwards ' participation in the
conspiracy, and the length of time Edwards participated in the conspiracy . At sentencing, the
government bears the burden to establish factors that determine the base offense level by a
preponderance of the evidence . United States v . Hatchett, 31 F.3d 1411 , 1418 ( 7th Cir. 1994) .
The Court on appeal applies a deferential standard of review over the sentencing court's
determination of these factors . The Court has recently set forth its standard of review over such
determinations:
This court has consistently held that factual determinations in the sentencing
context will be reversed only for " clear error. " United States v. Montgomery, 14
F.3d 1189, 1196 ( 7th Cir. 1994) ; United States v. Cedano-Rojas, 999 F.2d 1175 , (7th Cir . 1993 ) . A finding of fact is clearly erroneous and will be disturbed by
this court " only if, after reviewing the entire evidence, we are left 'with the definite
Page 31
Page 32 and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. " United States v.
Herrera, 878 F.2d 997, 1000 ( 7th Cir. 1989) (quoting Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 , 574 , 105 S.Ct. 1504 , 1511-12 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518
( 1985) ) .
United States v . Garcia, 66 F.3d 851 , 856 ( 7th Cir. 1995) .
Not only did the sentencing Court make adequate findings regarding the scope of
Edwards' agreement and participation in the conspiracy and the reasonable foreseeability to
Edwards of the entire quantity of narcotics dealt by the conspiracy, but also the evidence
adequately supports the Court's findings . The length of time Edwards participated in the
conspiracy, the activities in which Edwards engaged in furtherance of the conspiracy, and the
extent of the knowledge Edwards had of the scope of the conspiracy, all support the sentencing
Court's determination that foreseeable to Edwards was the entire quantity of narcotics dealt by
the conspiracy, and that Edwards should be held accountable for that quantity .
A.
The evidence adequately supports the sentencing Court's factual
determination that Edwards was involved in every part of the drug
trafficking organization .
Willie Edwards , Jr. participated in every facet of the conspiracy, and therefore Edwards
was in such a position that the entire amount of narcotics dealt by the conspiracy during the time
that Edwards was a participant was foreseeable to Edwards.
The evidence indicates that Edwards was involved in every phase of the Lee Edwards
narcotics trafficking organization . The organization can be broken down in various elements :
.
Sources of supply. Lee Edwards used Raymond Davis as a source of supply of
brown heroin, and Abiodun Agbele as a source of supply of white heroin.
!
Page 33
Page 34 Raymond Davis operated out of in Chicago . Lee Edwards normally sent other individuals
to Chicago to pick up the supply of narcotics from Raymond Davis . Willie Edwards was one of
the individuals who would pick up the supply of heroin from Raymond Davis. (Balbo 8-9)
Abiodun Agbele, a Nigerian, supplied exclusively white heroin . The supply of white
heroin came from Nigeria . Agbele delivered the white heroin only on several isolated dates .
Willie Edwards knew when there was a supply of white heroin in, as indicated by the telephone
conversation recorded in Exhibit 110 ( A-45 to A-48 ) , wherein a drug customer calls the Edwards
residence and Willie Edwards tells a customer, "we got the white in now. "
Willie Edwards, Jr.'s activities with regard to the sources of supply, alone, distinguish
Willie Edwards , Jr. from the workers and independent contractors whose roles involved
distribution of the narcotics only.
.
Workers . Lee Edwards made use of workers . These people would be " fronted "
narcotics by Lee and would return to Lee a portion of the sale proceeds . For example, for every
$ 10 bag, the seller would keep $2, and owe Lee Edwards $ 8 .
Lee owned an apartment building at 6th & Grant Streets in Gary, from which workers
sold narcotics . The workers who sold narcotics out of the apartment building worked on that
basis . Less than a year after Willie Edwards was released from prison in February of 1987 ,
Edwards began taking narcotics to the apartment building . (Tr. 417-421 ; Lorri 8-9, 10-11 )
A record was maintained indicating for how many packets of drugs each worker was
accountable . Law enforcement officers seized one of these record books in the search of the
Edwards residence at 460 Taft Place . An entry in that book dated March 7, 1990 recorded
quantities of narcotics for which Willie Edwards was responsible . The record for that date
Page 35 Digitized by Google
Page 36 indicated Willie Edwards was responsible for 100 $ 10 bags of white heroin, 30 $ 10 bags of brown
heroin, and 42 bags of cocaine . Willie Edwards was clearly a sizeable seller of narcotics for Lee
Edwards .
Lee also arranged for the sale of narcotics sold the Black Horseman liquor store , which he
owned, located at 10th and Virginia Streets in Gary. Willie Edwards sold drugs out of the
parking lot of the liquor store as well . (Lorri 10 , 23-24) Edwards sold larger quantity bags from
the liquor store, mostly $25 or $ 50 bags . (Lorri 27)
Willie Edwards clearly was heavily involved as one of Lee Edwards ' workers .
.
Runners . Lee Edwards also made use of " runners " . These people would answer
the phone for Lee, take narcotics orders, and run the narcotics out to locations where they would
meet the narcotics customers to complete the sale . Willie Edwards also fulfilled the role as one of
these runners . Telephone conversations recorded pursuant to a Court ordered wire tap on the
telephones at the Edwards ' residences establish that Willie Edwards heavily participated in this
type of activity. Trial Exhibits number 103 through 118 were tape recordings of some ofthe
telephone conversations engaged in by Willie Edwards wherein Edwards discussed narcotics
transactions . (Tr. 423-427) A summary of some of the conversations wherein Edwards agrees to
make deliveries follows :
Exhibit 105 ( 8/22/90 at 9:03 p.m. ) : Mike Sutton orders a "twenty" . Sutton is at the Shell
station, and Edwards tells Sutton, " Okay, come up there to the corner . Right at the corner
of the street. " (A-33 to A-35)
Exhibit 106 ( 8/29/90 at 6:11 p.m. ) : Little James orders " a three oh " ... " on the dude " .3
Edwards says, " ... I'll be on, on my way, soon as I get it . " They agree to meet " on
Fifteenth . " (A- 36 to A-38)
'Lorri Edwards testified this was an order for a $30 bag of heroin . (Tr. 440) 11
Page 37 Digitized by Google
Page 38 Exhibit 108 (9/7/90 at 11:01 p.m. ) : Gary Bradley orders a " four " . Edwards tells Bradley ,
"
meet me at Fifth and Taft . " Edwards says, " Go on, go on and leave man . I'm on my
way. " (A- 39 to A-41 )
Exhibit 109 ( 9/9/90 at 9:20 p.m. ) ; Annette orders " a seventy boy, ... dime of girl , ... two
dimes of boy, ... two dimes of girl, okay, and two dimes of boy" . Edwards tells her to
"just go in the lot ... you be there . ... If I don't be out there by that time, just come to the
door. "4 (A-42 to A-44)
Exhibit 110 (9/11/90 at 6:51 p.m. ) : Mike Sutton orders a " twenty" . Edwards tells him ,
"You know the next street over from here, Rutledge? ... Okay, go , go down there , I
mean, uh, go, go, go the next street over from us, stop there, go down Fifteenth , next
street over from us, the street after that, about two streets over from here. " Edwards tells
Sutton , " we got, got the white now. " 5 Edwards says , "Just meet me down that way. " (A45 to A-48)
Exhibit 111 (9/11/90 at 7:09 p.m. ) : Robert " Bob " Brown orders " half a T. "
Edwards ,
Fifteenth .
Brown asks
... meet you where?" Edwards replies, " Go down there to that liquor store on
I'm gonna be right on down there . " (A-49 to A- 52)
Exhibit 113 ( 9/14/90 at 9:47 p.m. ) : Larry Lowe orders a dime boy and a dime girl .
Edwards tells him , " ... meet me behind ... behind the house here ... I mean the next street
behind the house on Rutledge . The next street over ... you know, by the alley .... " (A- 56
to A- 58)
Exhibit 114 ( 9/15/90 at 7:51 p.m. ) : Annette orders, " A thirty cent boy ... a forty cent
boy, and a twenty cent girl . " Edwards tells her, " I'm going to go and get that for you
know .... ' Cause I'm gettin ' ready to walk out . ...meet me right down there on Fifth
Avenue ... by that fillin' station ...."
(A-59 to A- 63)
'Lorri Edwards testified that " boy" meant heroin and " girl " meant cocaine . (Tr . 439) For
example, in this conversation " 70 boy " meant $70 worth of heroin, " dime girl " meant $ 10 worth
of cocaine, and " two dimes of boy" meant two $ 10 bags of heroin. (Tr. 444)
'Lorri Edwards testified this is a reference to white heroin. (Tr. 447)
'Lorri Edwards testified "half a T" refers to a half of a measuring spoon used to measure
drugs . (Tr. 448-449)
Page 39 Digitized by Google
Page 40 Exhibit 115 (9/15/90 at 10:50 p.m. ) : Elaine Hughes orders " a twenty white and a twenty
brown. "
Edwards tells her to park " on Rutledge, the next street over from here. ... by
the alley . " (A- 64 to A-66)
Exhibit 116 (9/16/90 at 6:44 p.m. ) : Annette orders " a thirty boy and a dime girl . "
Edwards tells her, "I'm gonna have to meet you somewhere . ... you know where Rutledge
at ... behind the house? ... And then not that street, not Rutledge, the street before you
get to that .... Meet me, you know, just you. ...You can park them on Fifth Avenue ...
and get out of the car ... and meet me in the alley down there. " (A-67 to A-71 )
Exhibit 117 (9/16/90 at 6:55 p.m. ) : Mike Sutton calls and asks for Willie ... " the one with
the white Cadillac . " Willie Edwards, Jr. gets on the phone, and Sutton orders " a dime . "
Sutton tells Edwards Sutton is on Fourth and Bridge Streets. Edwards tells Sutton to
walk to Fifth and " ... be by that church down there from, from the ... fillin ' station . " (A- 72
to A-75)
Exhibit 118 (9/20/90 at 9:29 p.m. ) : Mike Sutton orders " a dime. " Edwards tells Sutton,
"Come on in back of, you know, Rutledge. " (A- 76 to A-78)
.
Independent contractors . There were a couple of more trusted individuals who
Lee Edwards supplied with large quantities of narcotics at a time to sell from their own locations
for Lee. Lee would sometimes supply narcotics customers with the telephone numbers for these
individuals and refer the customers to them. These individuals included Flakes Kellum and James
Davis.
Willie Edwards was familiar with these individuals, the quantities of narcotics with which
they were supplied to sell , and the telephone numbers where they could be reached . In one
telephone conversation , Edwards tells drug customer Brad Guyton that, " Flakes just left here,
man . He just, he just got 'bout three hundred things. "
(A- 55) In another conversation , with
'Lorri Edwards testified this is a reference to white heroin and brown heroin.
(Tr. 451 )
Lorri Edwards testified that Willie Edwards had a white Cadillac . (Tr. 453 )
'Lorri Edwards testified this meant Flakes had just left with about 300 $ 10 bags of " boy " , or
heroin . (Tr. 449)
Page 41 Digitized by Google
Page 42 drug customer Willie Word , Edwards tells Word that James Davis still has some narcotics and
Edwards gives Word Davis' telephone number. (A-81 to A- 82)10
.
Switching residences . Lee Edwards would switch back and forth between two
residences, to avoid attracting attention to a sustained volume of traffic at one residence . Willie
Edwards manned the phones at both residences . (Tr . 447-449) In one conversation , Edwards
makes statements that indicate he knows the organization is about to switch residences, and
arranges to meet the caller at the other residence . (Ex. 108 ; A-39 to A-41 )
For sentencing purposes, Willie Edwards is held accountable for all the narcotics dealt by
the conspiracy which are " reasonably foreseeable " to him . Since Edwards participated in every
aspect of the Lee Edwards narcotics trafficking organization, all of the narcotics dealt by the
organization in the last 2 ½ years of the organization's life were attributable to him. Edwards
participated in picking up brown heroin from Lee Edwards ' source of supply of brown heroin in
Chicago , Raymond Davis. Edwards was familiar with the shipments of white heroin, and
informed the customers when the white heroin was available . Some of the narcotics were sold
from the Lee Edwards residences. Edwards answered the phones at both residences, took
narcotics orders, instructed the customers where to meet, and met the customers to deliver the
narcotics and obtain the money. Lee Edwards had workers selling out of the apartment building
at 6th and Grant Streets . Willie Edwards brought narcotics to the building to be sold . Lorri
Edwards kept a record of narcotics for which others were responsible . Edwards was listed in the
10This tape recording of a conversation occurring September 21 , 1990 at 2:45 p.m. was
introduced into evidence as Exhibit 86 at Lee Edwards ' trial, and was submitted to the Willie
Edwards ' sentencing Court as part C of the appendix to the GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING
MEMORANDUM filed with the Willie Edwards sentencing Court on March 14 , 1996 .
Page 43
Page 44 record as being responsible for sizeable quantities of narcotics . Lee Edwards caused narcotics to
be sold from his liquor store. Willie Edwards sold narcotics from the parking lot at the liquor
store . Lee Edwards had independent contractors to whom customers would be referred to
purchase narcotics . Willie Edwards knew the names and phone numbers of these individuals ,
knew whether or not the individuals had a supply of narcotics to be sold and the quantity of
narcotics supplied to the individuals, and referred customers to the individuals . Not only was the
entirety of the Lee Edwards narcotics trafficking organization " foreseeable " to Willie Edwards,
but Edwards participated in every facet of the organization, including every facet of the supply
and distribution network.
Willie Edwards was not a leader in the organization . Lee Edwards was the undisputed
leader . The Court did not enhance Willie Edwards' offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1
for being a leader or organizer, and the government did not request that the Court do so.
However, Willie Edwards was involved in every part of the drug trafficking organization .
Therefore, the entire quantity of narcotics dealt by the Lee Edwards drug trafficking organization
was foreseeable to Edwards, and was encompassed in the agreement Edwards undertook when he
joined the conspiracy and participated in every part of the drug trafficking organization .
Moreover, as will be seen below, the sentencing Court did not hold Edwards responsible
for narcotics dealt by the Lee Edwards drug trafficking organization during any time period in
which Willie Edwards was not a member of the conspiracy . The sentencing Court sentenced
Edwards only based upon the quantity of narcotics dealt by the drug trafficking organization while
Edwards was a member of the conspiracy . As shown above, the entire quantity of narcotics dealt
by the conspiracy was foreseeable to Edwards, in that he participated in every phase of the drug
Page 45 Digitized by Google
Page 46 trafficking organization . The Court therefore properly held Edwards accountable for the entire
quantity of narcotics dealt by the conspiracy during the period of time that Edwards was a
member of the conspiracy.
B.
The evidence adequately supports the sentencing Court's factual
determination that Edwards' participation in the drug trafficking
organization began before February, 1989 .
The evidence indicates that Edwards actively participated in the conspiracy from early
to at least the end of September, 1990.¹¹
Lorri Edwards testified at the sentencing hearing that Willie Edwards began running
narcotics to an apartment building on 6th and Grant Streets in Gary, out of which Lee Edwards '
workers were selling narcotics . Lorri Edwards testified that while she could not pinpoint the date
on which she first became aware of Edwards taking narcotics to the apartment building, Edwards
began this activity at the latest no more than a year after he was released from prison, where he
had been serving a State prison sentence . (Lorri 10-11 ) Edwards served a sentence of
incarceration in the Indiana Department of Corrections for dealing in a narcotic drug, a Class B
felony in Indiana .
(PSI 6 , ¶ 23 ) . The probation department reported, and the parties agreed , that
Edwards was released from the Indiana Department of Corrections on February 24, 1987. (PSI 6 ,
¶ 24) . That places Edwards ' involvement in the Lee Edwards narcotics trafficking organization at
February of 1988 , at the latest .
Several of the tape recorded telephone conversations engaged in by Willie Edwards
intercepted by virtue of the wire tap were introduced into evidence and played at trial . The most
¹¹The conspiracy terminated on October 11 , 1990 , when law enforcement agents searched Lee
Edwards ' residence (during which Lee Edwards shot at federal agents) and arrested Lee Edwards .
Page 47 Digitized by Google
Page 48 recent of the tapes played was Exhibit 118 , which was a tape recording of a telephone
conversation occurring September 20 , 1990. ( A-76) Therefore, Edwards ' involvement in the Lee
Edwards narcotics trafficking organization continued until at least near the end of September,
.
Edwards actively participated in the Lee Edwards ' drug trafficking organization from at
least February 1988 until at least the end of September, 1990, or a period of at least 2 ½ years .
During the Lee Edwards sentencing hearing, the government established the quantity of
narcotics accountable to the conspiracy . The quantity established coincidently covered the period
of time that Willie Edwards was an active participant in the conspiracy . At Willie Edwards '
sentencing hearing, the government introduced into evidence a transcript of the testimony of DEA
Special Agent Vincent Balbo from Lee Edwards ' sentencing hearing .
(Balbo 3-5 ; A-7 to A- 31 )
The calculation of the quantity of narcotics attributed to the Lee Edwards drug trafficking
organization was based upon taking into account information known to the government , that is :
the quantity of narcotics supplied to the organization by Raymond Davis and Abiodun Agbele, the
purity of the narcotics supplied , and the purity of the drugs the organization sold on the street
after the organization used cutting agents to dilute the narcotics received from the sources of
supply. Using this data, one could extrapolate from the original quantity supplied to arrive at the
quantity the organization ultimately sold at the street level .
On appeal from Lee Edwards '
conviction and sentence, the Court approved of the calculations used to determine the total
quantity of narcotics attributed to the conspiracy and the underlying factual data used to support
those calculations . United States v . Edwards, 77 F.3d 968 , 975-77 (7th Cir . 1996) , remanded for
Page 49 Digitized by Google
Page 50 resentencing on other grounds , Edwards v . United States,
U.S.
S.Ct. 2543 , 135
L.Ed.2d 1064 ( 1996) .
Important to the instant case is the fact that those calculations derived from evidence
regarding the quantity of narcotics delivered to the drug trafficking organization and subsequently
sold at street level during the same period of time that Willie Edwards participated in the
conspiracy . The calculations started with the quantities of narcotics supplied by Raymond Davis
and Abiodun Agbele. Raymond Davis supplied the Lee Edwards drug trafficking organization
with black tar or brown heroin during a two year period from 1988 to 1990. (A- 9 to A- 12 ; Balbo
-8 )¹² Abiodun Agbele supplied the Lee Edwards drug trafficking organization with white heroin
between 1989 and January of 1990 , with an additional shipment being delivered in February of
. (A- 18)
These dates are significant, because they all fall within the time period , from at least
February 1988 to approximately the end of the organization in October of 1990 , during which
Willie Edwards, Jr. was participating in the organization . The quantities attributed to the Lee
Edwards organization when Lee Edwards was sentenced , then, are the same as the quantities
12DEA Special Agent Vince Balbo testified at Lee Edwards' sentencing hearing that Balbo
interviewed Raymond Davis on August 19, 1992 , and that Davis told Balbo that Davis supplied
the Lee Edwards drug trafficking organization with brown heroin and some white heroin over a
two-year period . Balbo mistakenly testified at the Lee Edwards ' sentencing hearing that the twoyear period was the period from 1990 to 1992. The time period Balbo identified would have been
the two years prior to Balbo's interview of Davis, as opposed to the two years prior to the search.
(A- 9) That is impossible, since the organization ceased to exist when law enforcement officers
searched the Edwards residence on October 11 , 1990.
(Balbo 7) When questioned at Willie
Edwards' sentencing hearing, Balbo testified that he was mistaken in his testimony during the Lee
Edwards sentencing hearing, that he had reviewed his notes of his interview with Raymond Davis,
and that the two year period Davis had referred to was the two years from 1988 to 1990 , which
would have been the two years prior to the search. (Balbo 7-8)
Page 51
Page 52 attributable to the organization during the time period that Willie Edwards, Jr. was participating in
the conspiracy .
The sentencing Court's calculations with regard to Lee Edwards have passed muster on
appeal . Those calculations dealt with the time period during which Willie Edwards participated in
the conspiracy . Willie Edwards participated in every aspect of the Lee Edwards drug trafficking
organization, making the entire quantity of drugs dealt by the organization during the time period
of Edwards ' participation part of Edwards ' agreement to participate in the conspiracy and
foreseeable to Edwards . The sentencing Court therefore properly attributed to Willie Edwards
the quantity of narcotics resulting from these calculations.
CONCLUSION
The sentencing Court made more than adequate findings regarding the credibility of
witnesses, regarding the facts established by the credible evidence pertaining to Edwards '
participation in the conspiracy, and regarding the scope of Edwards' agreement and the
foreseeability to Edwards of the quantity of narcotics dealt with respect to Edwards ' participation
in the conspiracy . The evidence adequately supported the sentencing Court's factual
determinations that Edwards was involved in every part of the conspiracy, and that Edwards '
participation in the conspiracy began in February, 1988. The sentencing Court therefore properly
attributed to Edwards the entire quantity of narcotics dealt by the conspiracy as established by the
government .
!
Page 53 Digitized by Google
Page 54 The government therefore respectfully requests the Court to affirm Edwards ' conviction
and sentence.
Respectfully submitted ,
JON E. DEGUILIO ,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
c
amet.
Bella
By:
Daniel L. Bella,
Assistant United States Attorney
Indiana Attorney No. 2670-45
!
Page 55 Digitized by Google
Page 56 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify under penalty of perjury that on November 29, 1996 I deposited a
copy of the foregoing Brief and Appendix of the Plaintiff-Appellee in the United States mail,
Dyer, Indiana, postage prepaid , properly addressed to :
ROCHELLE S. MEYERS , ESQ.
FRED R. HAINS, ESQ . W. JEFFERSON BOULEVARD
SOUTH BEND , IN 46601
Barbara J. Roncias
Barbara J. Ronciak, Legal Clerk
U.S. Attorney's Office Main Street , STE A
Dyer, IN 46311/322-8576
!
Page 57 Digitized by Google
Page 58
Page 59 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS- URBANA
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 

Non-Government Works Copyright © 2001-2025 Think Computer Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

About   Privacy   Security   Contact Us

No AI
This website does not use generative AI for text responses.

PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?