U.S. v. Blackman

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 180-month term of incarceration on drug distribution charge, where said sentence was based, in part, on finding that defendant was responsible for uncharged distribution of 3 kilograms of crack cocaine, and that defendant possessed firearm during his drug distribution activities. Dist. Ct. could properly credit testimony of customer, who stated that: (1) he made consistent drug purchases of crack cocaine from defendant in 2008 to 2010 time frame and intermittent crack cocaine purchases from 2012 to 2013; and (2) he saw defendant with firearm during said time frame. Moreover, said time frames overlapped time period of defendant’s stipulated conduct in charged offense, and said sales concerned same drug at issue in charged offense. Ct. also rejected defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct. committed procedural error in failing to address his arguments that govt. committed sentencing manipulation by allowing informant to make additional purchases of drugs in order to increase defendant’s sentence, and that Dist. Ct. should reject powder to crack ratio in sentencing guidelines, where: (1) Dist. Ct. was not required to address sentence manipulation argument; and (2) Dist. Ct. actually addressed powder to crack ratio argument in written sentencing order.