United States v. Roberta “Mama Bear” Draheim and Tom Lewis, Nos. 19-1262 & 19-1911.
“Mama Bear” was a drug dealer in northern Wisconsin. Her meth conspiracy was long lasting and involved overseeing nearly 40 multi-pound packages. Lewis was recently released from prison when he became involved in the conspiracy. “Mama Bear” argued she qualified for safety‐valve relief, but the district court disagreed because she was a leader of her conspiracy.
Lewis argued the district court erred by including other amounts of drugs as relevant conduct.
The Court reversed and remanded Lewis’s case for resentencing, holding the district court erroneously included as relevant conduct drug amounts without finding the drugs qualified as a common scheme or plan.
“Factors that are appropriate to the determination of whether offenses are sufficiently connected or related to each other to be considered as part of the same course of conduct include the degree of similarity of the offenses, the regularity (repetitions) of the offenses, and the time interval between the offenses. When one of the above factors is absent, a stronger presence of at least one of the other factors is required.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2), c cmt. n. 5(B)(ii).
To be clear, relevant conduct does not “encompass any offense that is similar in kind to the offense of conviction but …does not bear the required relationship to that offense.” United States v. Ortiz, 431 F.3d 1035, 1040 (7th Cir. 2005) We have emphasized that the “mere fact that the defendant has engaged in other drug transactions is not sufficient to justify treating those transactions as ‘relevant conduct’ for sentencing purposes.” United States v. Purham, 754 F.3d 411, 415 (7th Cir. 2014).
It is important to underscore that “the relevant conduct or aggregation rule grants the government a fearsome tool in drug cases … .” United States v. White, 519 F.3d 342, 347 (7th Cir. 2008). “It permits prosecutors to indict defendants on relatively minor offenses and then seek enhanced sentences later by asserting that the defendant has committed other more serious crimes for which, for whatever reason, the defendant was not prosecuted and has not been convicted.” Ortiz, 431 F.3d at 1040.
For more about Chicago Criminal Lawyer Michael J. Petro, visit www.mjpetro.com or call 312-913-1111
Comments