United States v. Avila, Everado , 465 F.3d 796 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________
    No. 05-1894
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    EVERADO AVILA,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
    No. 1:03–CR–00057—Theresa L. Springmann, Judge.
    ____________
    ARGUED SEPTEMBER 22, 2006—DECIDED OCTOBER 13, 2006
    ____________
    Before POSNER, ROVNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
    POSNER, Circuit Judge. The defendant was indicted
    along with a number of others for conspiracy to dis-
    tribute cocaine and marijuana and for possession of mari-
    juana with intent to distribute it. The first charge carried a
    statutory maximum prison sentence of 20 years and the
    second of 5 years. Just before the trial began, the defendant
    pleaded guilty to the second charge pursuant to an informal
    agreement with the government that it would drop the first
    charge. The judge imposed the statutory maximum of 5
    years and the defendant appeals on the ground that the
    judge misapplied the sentencing guidelines.
    2                                                No. 05-1894
    In the course of an investigation of the 148th Street Latin
    Kings, a criminal gang in Hammond, Indiana, the police
    discovered in defendant Avila’s home marijuana along with
    two hats marked with the Latin Kings’ symbol (a crown,
    naturally) and letters written to Avila by members of the
    Latin Kings. It was the marijuana found in the search that
    Avila was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute.
    If that were all there was to this case, the guidelines range
    for Avila’s crime would have been zero to six months. But
    the probation service reported that Avila had—though there
    is no indication of when—been given cocaine by one of his
    codefendants to be cooked into crack, and that Avila did
    cook it, and in addition that six months before the marijuana
    was found in his home he had fired a gun at members of
    another gang (that is, not the Latin Kings), apparently in
    retaliation for his brother’s having been murdered by
    members of that gang. The crack and gun episodes, treated
    by the judge as relevant conduct (though without explana-
    tion beyond reference to the presentence investigation
    report), jacked up the guidelines sentencing range for
    Avila’s possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it
    from zero to six months to 87 to 108 months, but the judge
    could not go above 60 months because that was the statu-
    tory ceiling.
    Avila contends that the crack and gun episodes were
    not relevant conduct. To count as relevant conduct and thus
    influence the guidelines range, conduct must be “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). The govern-
    ment argues that Avila was a member of the Latin Kings
    and that his marijuana, crack, and gun offenses were all part
    of the gang’s activities. There are three problems. The first
    is that there is negligible evidence that Avila was a member
    of the Latin Kings. Other people lived in the house besides
    No. 05-1894                                                   3
    himself, and there is no indication of where in the house the
    two hats were found. The letters from the Latin Kings did
    not identify him as a member or discuss criminal activities.
    Nothing of the abundant evidence obtained in the police
    investigation of the gang, whch included address books,
    surveillance photos, and taped conversations, mentioned
    Avila. He had some association with members of the gang,
    plainly; but guilt by association is not a permissible basis for
    a sentence enhancement. United States v. Irvin, 
    87 F.3d 860
    ,
    866 (7th Cir. 1996).
    Even if Avila was a member of the Latin Kings, it does not
    follow that his cooking cocaine given him by another
    member (for his codefendants were members of the gang)
    or his shooting at members of a rival gang were acts done
    on behalf of the gang, rather than being purely personal. We
    have no idea when the cooking occurred; and he had
    a purely personal motive for shooting at members of
    another gang who had murdered his brother.
    And even if he was a member of the gang and it was part
    of his work as a member to cook cocaine, it does not follow
    that the cooking, let alone the shooting, was part of the same
    course of conduct, or scheme, or pursuant to the same plan,
    as selling maijuana. The government has confused gang
    membership with membership in a conspiracy, forgetting
    that “to join a conspiracy…is to join an agreement, rather
    than a group.” United States v. Townsend, 
    924 F.2d 1385
    , 1390
    (7th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Gibbs, 
    182 F.3d 408
    ,
    430 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v. Garcia, 
    151 F.3d 1243
    ,
    1246 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Robinson, 
    978 F.2d 1554
    ,
    1563 (10th Cir. 1992). One might join a golf club because it
    had a nice dining room and swimming pool, yet never play
    golf. And one might join a gang to feel like a big shot or to
    obtain immunity from being beaten up by gang members,
    4                                                 No. 05-1894
    without participating in the gang’s criminal activities. The
    Latin Kings who were charged with Avila, and with whom
    he would have been tried had he not pleaded guilty, were
    convicted of conspiring to sell drugs, including crack, but
    there is no evidence that Avila was a member of that
    conspiracy; for that matter, there is no evidence that the
    Latin Kings conspired to retaliate against the murderer
    of Avila’s brother.
    One can of course plan to commit a series of separate
    crimes without having to join a conspiracy, which requires
    concerted action by at least two people. United States v.
    Scarbrough, 
    990 F.2d 296
    , 298 (7th Cir. 1993). Avila might
    have had a plan to sell marijuana, cook crack, and shoot
    his brother’s murderers. That is pretty implausible, how-
    ever, and there is no evidence of it—no evidence of when he
    cooked the crack and no connection shown between his
    selling marijuana and his attempt to revenge the murder
    of his brother. So far as appears, his three acts, two of which
    were used as relevant conduct to jack up his sentence for the
    third, were wholly unrelated to each other.
    The guidelines range really was just zero to six months,
    and so the sentence must be vacated and the case remanded
    for resentencing—which is not to say that the district judge
    cannot give him a longer sentence than six months. The
    guidelines are merely advisory, and a sentence above or
    below the applicable guidelines range will be affirmed
    (provided it is within the statutory limits) if reasonable. The
    judge could well conclude that Avila’s other criminal
    activities (besides possession of marijuana with intent to sell
    it), though they were not relevant conduct and hence did
    not affect the guidelines range, warranted a heavier punish-
    ment. But the sentencing judge is required to consider the
    guidelines before picking a sentence, United States v. Booker,
    No. 05-1894                                                 5
    
    543 U.S. 220
    , 264 (2005); United States v. Gonzalez, 
    2006 WL 2588951
    , at *1 (7th Cir. Sept. 11, 2006), and this entails a
    correct understanding of their application to the defendant’s
    conduct.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    A true Copy:
    Teste:
    _____________________________
    Clerk of the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    USCA-02-C-0072—10-13-06