Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Bradshaw

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division

December 2, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ASHLEY BRADSHAW

          KAREN L. HAYES, MAG. JUDGE.

          WRITTEN REASONS FOR RULING ON OBJECTIONS TO PRE-SENTENCE REPORT

          TERRY A. DOUGHTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending before the Court are certain objections to the Pre-Sentence Report filed by Defendant Ashley Bradshaw. A hearing was held on December 2, 2019, and the Court issued its ruling on those objections. These written reasons address the Court's ruling.

         Objection #1: Defendant objects to the quantity of drugs calculated by the Government to determine the Base Offense Level, contending that the drug quantity of 1.63 kilograms of methamphetamine “ice” is incorrect. She admits that she shared an apartment with Co-Defendant Deleyoung Miller and was aware that he had methamphetamine in his room, and she further admits that she delivered methamphetamine at his direction. However, she denies that she was aware that, or that it was reasonably foreseeable for her to know, that Miller had 1.63 kilograms in his room.

         Under USSG §1B1.3(a)(1)(B), “in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity, ” a defendant is held accountable for “all acts and omissions of others that were . . . (i) within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, (ii) in furtherance of that criminal activity, and (iii) reasonably foreseeable in connection with that criminal activity”; that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction.” While Defendant denies that she was aware of the amount of drugs Deleyoung Miller possessed, she may be held accountable, regardless of her actual knowledge, if the relevant conduct criteria are met. The Court finds that they are. Miller possessed the very drug that she distributed for him, in the apartment that he shared with her, and the possession of a larger amount of drugs necessary for distribution by multiple persons was reasonably foreseeable in connection with the criminal activity. Therefore, Defendant's Objection #1 is DENIED.

         Objection #2: Defendant objects she should have received a reduction in her offense level as a minimal/minor/intermediate participant pursuant to U.S.S.G. §3B1.2(a).

         Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, a defendant's offense level may be reduced for her mitigating role in the offense. An offense level is decreased by four levels if the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal activity. An offense level is decreased by two levels if the defendant was a minor participant. For intermediate participants the offense level is reduced three levels. Defendant bears the burden of proving her mitigating role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence.

         Application note 3 explains this adjustment applies to “a defendant who plays a part in committing the offense that makes him substantially less culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity.” It is a “fact-based determination, ” and the Court considers a No. of factors, including:

(i) the degree to which the defendant understood the scope and structure of the criminal activity;
(ii) the degree to which the defendant participated in planning or organizing the criminal activity;
(iii) the degree to which the defendant exercised decision-making authority or influenced the exercise of decision-making authority;
(iv) the nature and extent of the defendant's participation in the commission of the criminal activity, including the acts the defendant performed and the responsibility and discretion the defendant had in performing those acts;
(v) the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit from the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.