ORDER

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.

Seeking a reduction in his sentence under Amendment 750, Defendant Gregory Robinson filed a Petition for Writ of Audita Qurerla [sic] (Doc. 862), Pro Se Well-Pleaded Complaint to Nullify Judgment (Doc. 874), and Response and Request for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to the Retroactive Amendment to Sentencing Guidelines (Doc. 897). The government filed a response (Doc. 898) and Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 902). The Court heard oral argument on September 23, 2013, and the transcript of that proceeding is incorporated herein. (Doc. 912). Subsequently, the Court asked the parties for additional information regarding the applicability of United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328 (11th Cir. 2013) to this case. (Doc. 907). Defendant filed a response (Doc. 908), as did the government (Doc. 914). Defendant then filed a new motion for retroactive application of the Guidelines pursuant to Amendment 782 (Doc. 915) and a legal memorandum in support (Doc. 920), and the government responded (Doc. 922).1

The Initial Sentencing

In 1989, Robinson was found guilty of conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine base (Count I), possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (Count II), possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (Count III), and possession of cocaine with the intent to manufacture cocaine base (Count IV). (Sentencing Tr. at 17).2 At sentencing, the late Judge John H. Moore II overruled Robinson's objection to his base offense level, adopting the Probation Office's statement that "the offense behavior involved in excess of five hundred grams of cocaine base." (Presentence Investigation Report ¶ 15, as reflected in Doc. 918 at 10); (see also Sentencing Tr. at 15). The 1988 Drug Quantity Table in the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a maximum base offense level of 36 for offenses involving 500 grams or more of cocaine base. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (1988). Using that base offense level, the Court found a total offense level of 44 and a criminal history category of III, which provided for a sentence of life imprisonment under the Guidelines. (Sentencing Tr. at 16). Judge Moore imposed concurrent sentences of life imprisonment on Counts I and II, with consecutive sentences of forty years on each of Counts III and IV. (Sentencing Tr. at 23 ("That's eighty years on top of your life sentence.")).

Robinson's First Motion for a Sentence Reduction

In 2008, Robinson filed a motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. (Doc. 793). Amendment 706 changed the required quantities of cocaine base, making a base offense level of 36 require "[a]t least 1.5 KG but less than 4.5 KG of Cocaine Base" and a base offense level of 34 require "[a]t least 500 G but less than 1.5 KG of Cocaine Base." U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (2007). Thus, Robinson argued that his base offense level should be reduced to 34. (Doc. 793 at 12). After a hearing, Judge Moore found that the cocaine base amounts in the initial sentencing judgment were sufficient such that Amendment 706 did not alter Robinson's Guideline range. (Doc. 849 at 24). As such, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to reduce Robinson's sentence because his Guidelines range under the amended Guidelines would remain the same. (Doc. 833). The Court made an alternative ruling that, even if it had jurisdiction to impose a lesser sentence, it would still give Robinson a life sentence. (Doc. 833). Robinson appealed. (Doc. 835).

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that the finding from Robinson's original sentencing—that his offense conduct involved in excess of 500 grams of cocaine base—bound the Court to a drug weight of "in excess of 500 grams."3 Robinson, 325 F. App'x at 876. As this quantity would have lowered Robinson's Guidelines range, this Court had jurisdiction to reduce his sentence. Id. While this meant that the Court erred in finding a lack of jurisdiction, the error was harmless because Judge Moore alternatively stated that Robinson would still have received a life sentence. Id. at 877. As such, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Judge Moore's decision, and Robinson's life sentence remained intact. Id.

Robinson's Second Request for a Sentence Reduction

Robinson now seeks a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 750, (Doc. 897 at 1), and Amendment 782, (Doc. 915). To receive a sentence reduction, Robinson must first demonstrate that he is eligible for a reduced Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Courts can reduce a term of imprisonment "[i]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). This relief is only available for amendments, such as Amendment 750 and Amendment 782, which are listed as covered amendments under the Sentencing Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (2016).

Robinson's base offense level was 36 under the 1988 Guidelines. (Sentencing Tr. at 15). Under the current Guidelines, the cocaine base weight necessary to reach a base offense level of 36 is 8.4 kilograms. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (2016). Therefore, to be eligible for a sentence reduction, Robinson must be responsible for less than 8.4 kilograms of cocaine base. The parties disagree about how the Court should determine the relevant drug weight.

Robinson points to the law-of-the-case doctrine, arguing that the Eleventh Circuit's earlier holding—that this Court is incapable of revising the drug quantity finding of "in excess of five hundred grams"—applies here and a reduction is warranted. Robinson, 325 F. App'x at 876. An earlier appellate decision is binding on all subsequent proceedings unless the case fits within one of the narrow exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine. United States v. Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir. 1996). Those exceptions occur where there is new evidence, where the appellate decision is clearly erroneous and would cause manifest injustice, or where an intervening change in controlling law dictates a different result. Id.; see, e.g., Singleton v. Dep't of Corr., 323 F. App'x 783, 785 (11th Cir. 2009) (applying a subsequent, contrary, published opinion, rather than an unpublished opinion that was the law-of-the-case); United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2007) (applying Booker as an intervening change in the law). The law-of-the-case should be followed unless a court is certain that an exception unquestionably applies. Legget v. Badger, 798 F.2d 1387, 1389 n.2 (11th Cir. 1986).

The government argues that the law-of-the-case does not apply because Hamilton represents an intervening change in the law that dictates a different result. (Doc. 914 at 1). Under Hamilton, courts first look to the "drug quantity findings it made, either explicitly or implicitly," at the original sentencing hearing. 715 F.3d at 340. If such "finding is not specific enough to support any conclusion about whether [the applicable] Amendment . . . lower[s] [the defendant's] base offense level,"—i.e. no more specific than "at least 1.5 kilograms"—the court shall examine the entire record before it at the time of the original sentencing to see if it can determine a more specific drug quantity. Id. If, after looking at the entire record, it is still indeterminable whether the drug quantity is such that an Amendment lowers the defendant's Guidelines range, then the defendant is ineligible for relief. Id. at 340-41. The defendant has the burden of demonstrating that he would have received a lower Guidelines range; thus, the sentencing court lacks the authority to reduce a defendant's sentence unless the defendant makes an adequate showing that an Amendment lowers his Guidelines range.4 Id. at 341; see United States v. Green, 764 F.3d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 2014) ("[T]he defendant, as the § 3582(c)(2) movant, bears the burden of establishing that a retroactive amendment actually lowered his guidelines range in his case." (quotation marks omitted) (alterations adopted) (quoting Hamilton, 715 F.3d at 337)).

If this Court were to follow the law-of-the-case, it would be bound by the initial finding that Robinson was accountable for at least 500 grams of cocaine base, and would be unable to inquire further to determine by how much his responsibility exceeded 500 grams. Robinson, 325 F. App'x at 876. However, Hamilton holds that district courts can no longer rely on ambiguous factual findings regarding drug weight. 715 F.3d at 340-41; see, e.g., United States v. Woods, 573 F. App'x 881, 882 (11th Cir. 2014) (vacating the district court's decision and remanding because it failed to determine a specific drug quantity). The Eleventh Circuit has held that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not preclude a district court from subsequently applying Hamilton. See Green, 764 F.3d at 1357; United States v. Cromartie, 649 F. App'x 965, 969-70 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Guyton, 596 F. App'x 873, 877 (11th Cir. 2015). Although each of these cases held that the law-of-the-case did not bar the application of Hamilton in the subsequent § 3852 proceedings, they are distinguishable from Robinson in that the prior rulings never explicitly disallowed the district court from reexamining an indeterminate drug quantity. See Green, 764 F.3d at 1357; Cromartie, 649 F. App'x at 969-70; Guyton, 596 F. App'x at 877. Nonetheless, these cases still hold that district courts are not bound by the law-of-the-case and should follow Hamilton.

In Green, the defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 706, which was summarily denied by the district court. On the first appeal, the Eleventh Circuit stated:

United States v. Green, 375 F. App'x 944, 945 (11th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Green then filed a second motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 750. Green, 764 F.3d at 1355. The district court again concluded that Green was ineligible for a sentence reduction, but this time found that Green was responsible for 32.1 kilograms of cocaine base. Id. Green appealed again and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Id. In holding that the law-of-the-case did not require the district court to lower Green's base offense level, the Eleventh Circuit stated:

Id. (citations omitted). Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit held in Green that the district court did exactly what Hamilton requires by determining a specific drug quantity attributable to Green. Id. This Court views Green, Cromartie, and Guyton as verifying that Hamilton is a change in the controlling law that the Court is required to apply here.

Robinson further attempts to distinguish Hamilton by stating that the quantity finding in Hamilton was inaccurate and unclear, whereas the quantity finding in Robinson's initial sentencing hearing was clear. (Doc. 908 at 9). In Hamilton, the court sought to determine whether a defendant's offense involved 4.5 kilograms or more of crack cocaine where the initial sentencing hearing only established that the defendant was responsible for "at least 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine." Hamilton, 715 F.3d at 334. In making its quantity determination at the initial § 3582(c)(2) hearing, the district court relied on a memorandum from probation containing several errors. Id. at 335. Most importantly, the probation report used a 1:1 cocaine powder-to-base conversion ratio. Id. at 335. Given these errors, the district court's order was vacated and remanded for an accurate drug quantity determination. Id. at 340. In so doing, the Eleventh Circuit provided a specific process for the district court to determine drug quantity, to include reviewing all materials available to the sentencing court. Id.

The procedure laid out in Hamilton for determining drug quantity on remand was not limited to cases involving errors in probation memoranda. See id. at 340-41; see also Green, 764 F.3d at 1355. Indeed, it would not make sense for district courts to have one standard for drug quantity findings in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, and an entirely different standard on remand if they relied on an erroneous probation memorandum in their initial ruling. Thus, despite Robinson's argument to the contrary, Hamilton is not limited to its facts. Instead, Hamilton and this case similarly involve an inexact sentencing finding of "at least" or "in excess of" a certain drug quantity. Hamilton establishes new law governing how courts should make drug quantity determinations in these situations. 715 F.3d at 340. As such, Hamilton controls this Court's determination of Robinson's drug weight.5

Applying Hamilton

A district court lacks jurisdiction to alter a defendant's sentence unless the amendment has the effect of reducing the defendant's applicable guidelines range. Hamilton, 715 F.3d at 337. "In determining the amended guidelines range, the district court may not reconsider other guideline application decisions . . . ." Id. (quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Cothran, 106 F.3d 1560, 1562-63 (11th Cir. 1997)). The minimum quantity of cocaine base required for a base offense level of 36 under the 2016 Guidelines is 8.4 kilograms; thus, to qualify for a reduction, Robinson needs to show that the cocaine base attributable to him is less than 8.4 kilograms. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (2016); Hamilton, 715 F.3d at 341.

At the original sentencing hearing, Judge Moore found that the Probation Office correctly calculated a base offense level of 36. (Sentencing Tr. at 15). Additionally, Judge Moore overruled Robinson's objections to the PSR and adopted its factual statements as the Court's findings. (Sentencing Tr. at 13-16). The only explicit drug quantity finding related to cocaine base was contained in paragraph 15, which states: "[b]ecause the offense behavior involved in excess of five-hundred grams of cocaine base, the base offense level is thirty-six." (Doc. 918 at 10, ¶ 15). Paragraphs six through nine of the PSR provide a factual background of the offense, but do not state explicit quantities of cocaine base. However, they do state: "Robinson purchased powdered cocaine in the Miami, Florida area, usually in kilogram quantities. . . . A witness, Caroline `Kelly' Taylor testified that she . . . knew of at least 20.5 kilograms of cocaine that was transported from Miami." (Doc. 978 at 9, ¶ 6). The PSR goes on to state: "After the powdered cocaine was delivered to . . . Jacksonville, Gregory Robinson or his managers cooked the substance into cocaine base . . . ." (Doc. 918 at 9, ¶ 7).

Because the finding at the sentencing hearing was no more specific than "at least" 500 grams, the Court shall review the entire record to attempt to determine a specific drug quantity attributable to Robinson.6 Hamilton, 715 F.3d at 340-41. Judge Moore adopted as fact that Taylor knew of at least 20.5 kilograms of cocaine powder that was shipped from Miami to Jacksonville, and once in Jacksonville the cocaine powder was cooked into cocaine base. (See Sentencing Tr. at 13; Doc. 918 at 9, ¶¶ 6-7). This evidence is supported by the trial testimony.7 (Trial Tr., Vol. 2 at 79-92, 102-03; Vol. 3 at 51, 260; Vol. 4 at 212-13; Vol. 7 at 231). During trial, Agent Permaul testified that, based on a conversation between Robinson and one of his codefendants, Robinson was angry that cocaine powder he had received was only seventy-eight percent pure. (Trial Tr. Vol. 10 p. 135). Using seventy-eight percent as a conservative baseline,8 Robinson would be responsible for 15.99 kilograms (20.5 KG × 78%) of cocaine base. See, e.g., Singleton, 545 F.3d at 934 ("A district court is required to determine, based upon some evidence, the amount of crack cocaine that would be produced from the amount of powder cocaine involved, and to use that figure in calculating a defendant's sentence under the crack cocaine schedule."); United States v. Booker, 334 F.3d 406, 414 (5th Cir. 2003) ("Conversion of powder cocaine to crack cocaine for sentencing purposes is permissible if such conversion was foreseeable to the defendant.").9 The 15.99 kilograms attributable to Robinson far exceeds the minimum 8.4 kilograms necessary for a base offense level of 36. Accordingly, Robinson has failed to carry his burden to show that he would have received a lower guidelines range and is therefore ineligible for a sentence reduction.10

V. Conclusion

The Court understands that the sentencing regime has changed substantially since Robinson received his life plus eighty years sentence in 1990. However, the original sentencing judge declined to reduce the sentence in 2008 and the undersigned, as the successor judge, finds no legal authority to do so. Nevertheless, if the Eleventh Circuit finds that the Court is bound by the law-of-the-case or has otherwise erred, I will, of course, revisit Robinson's sentence.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Defendant's Petition for Writ of Audita Qurerla [sic] (Doc. 862) and Pro Se Well-Pleaded Complaint to Nullify Judgment (Doc. 874) are DENIED.

2. Defendant's Motion for Retroactive Application of Amendment 782 (Doc. 915) is DENIED.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

VOLUME 16

TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS AS TO GREGORY ROBINSON BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN H. MOORE II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

(Proceedings reported by microprocessor stenography; transcript produced by computer.)

THE CLERK: Case number 89-74 criminal-J-16. The United States of America versus Gregory Robinson, Bruce Lewis and Douglas Richard Hewitt.

Mark Devereaux for the the Government. Barbara Ann Butler representing defendant Robinson. Robert Calvin Rivers representing defendant Lewis. George S. Gray representing defendant Hewitt.

(Defendant Robinson present).

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Robinson, you and your counsel approach the podium, please.

We've now reached the stage in these proceedings where it's necessary that — and it's my duty to address several questions to you and your attorney, Mr. Robinson, and to counsel for the Government. First, have you had an opportunity to read and discuss the presentence report?

DEFENDANT ROBINSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you have any objections to the factual accuracy of that report?

MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, the objections that were filed, the written objections that I filed on his behalf are the only objections that he would have, and I can go over those.

There have been some changes since filing them that might save some time, if you would like me to do that at this point.

THE COURT: I just want to know what objections you have. I'm going to have to make some findings, I presume.

MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, we have filed written objections to the presentence report. Following the filing we met with the probation officer and the —

THE COURT: Very untimely, I might add.

MS. BUTLER: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead.

MS. BUTLER: Following that meeting, objections, we would withdraw the objections to the cover sheet as set forth in our paragraph one and to paragraphs — our paragraph 17, which was to the points that were attributable to the criminal possession of a weapon on the criminal history category. And then to abbreviate things this morning, we would stand on our written objections without further argument at this time as provided for under Section 6A1.2. The majority of those objections deal with facts that were adduced at trial or the factual findings of the probation officer, which are not necessarily substantive. And if we could just be allowed to have the written objections stand, that would be our preference at this time.

There are objections that were clarified as to our paragraph 9, which is the presentence investigative report, paragraph number 13, relating to adjustments for obstruction of justice. There was some uncertainty as to the false statement to which Mr. Fortenberry referred.

At one point a reference was made in the presentence investigation report to a codefendant, and in another place a reference was made to a potential witness. And that has been cleared up and Mr. Fortenberry assures me that he is relying upon a transcript number 97 from the Princewood tape wiretaps, and we would simply like to have our objection to the consideration of that stand as our objection at trial. First of all, that we were not given — we did not have the ability to prepare our own transcript of that telephone call. There was no expert voice analysis of Mr. Robinson's voice identified on that call, and that he has maintained his denial that that was his voice. And I understand that there has been perhaps a finding to the contrary, but at this point we would like to have our objections stand on those grounds.

As to the second prong, that the probation officer has relied upon for the adjustment for obstruction of justice, that being the ability or the failure to disclose an alias, it is Mr. Robinson's position that he is not Ishmael Lewis, as is believed, and we would simply say that that may not be an appropriate ground to rely upon for the adjustment of obstruction of justice. And in that regard, the report that is contained as to the criminal history from Guyana through the Guyana police report, as set forth in our objection to paragraph number 23, our paragraph 16, in the presentence investigation report, pages four and five, paragraphs 23 to 31, there are numerous convictions, juvenile convictions. On pages five and six, paragraphs 32 to 41, there are adult convictions.

Now, we have not had the opportunity to investigate the validity or the accuracy of those convictions. I have had the opportunity to briefly look at the sheet that the INS officer had, which I believe is what Mr. Fortenberry was given and relied upon, and I note that while it is — appears to be an official document, it is not notarized, it is not under oath, I do not believe. And we have, of course, not had the opportunity to investigate the accuracy of that.

I understand that the utilization of those factors does not add to the computation and so no numbers have been given, but the sheer volume of those interactions is prejudicial to my client and we would object to any reference to those being in the presentence investigation report at this time. And I believe that's adequately set forth in our written objections.

THE COURT: You say there is one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight reported convictions as a juvenile and one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten as an adult, all in Guyana. You say you haven't had an opportunity to investigate the accuracy of those?

MS. BUTLER: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Ask your client whether he got charged with them. Can't you ask him that?

MS. BUTLER: My client denies that he's Ishmael Lewis, and so he therefore denies this conviction record. THE COURT: Okay.

MS. BUTLER: And I have not had the ability — and quite candidly, the INS agent has stated that he has not investigated the accuracy. He's explained to me the procedures that he has gone through to get those records.

THE COURT: What other objections?

MS. BUTLER: I would note also that according to the list that the INS officer gave, that there is some contradiction in the dates, of the dates of — the dates of release do not appear on the information given to the Court, but on the dates of release that are in the possession of the INS agent — and I don't have a copy of that report and if the Court is going to let it stand, I would ask that a copy be submitted so that it will be a part of the record. There's been some difficulty with my obtaining a copy. I have gotten late yesterday afternoon the appropriate form, but I would ask that the Government or the presentence I'm sorry, the probation officer submit a copy of that document that purports to be the criminal conviction from Guyana, at someplace in the record, whether it's sealed or not.

THE COURT: What else?

MS. BUTLER: I think that — all the other objections we would just stand as I requested, without further argument.

THE COURT: All right. The Government care to be heard with regard to the accuracy of the presentence report?

MR. DEVEREAUX: Only, your Honor, I believe the evidence during trial, in fact two of the telephone calls that we heard during the trial clearly indicate that the defendant was attempting to obstruct justice. Direct the Court's attention specifically to Exhibit T 65, which was a telephone call between Mr. Robinson and Nicole Sewell, and this was subsequent to Miss Sewell being stopped on 1-95 on April 6th, and Mr. Robinson was giving her advice on false statements to make during the proceedings that I guess she was waiting to begin within the — involving that stop.

Additionally, on Exhibit T 51, Mr. Robinson is speaking to an individual by name of Dexter and telling him to use a false name in connection with identifying himself with the police authorities. Both of those exhibits were admitted in the trial and I believe clearly demonstrate his action in obstructing justice.

Concerning his identity, INS sent a request for assistance down to Guyana via the United States Embassy in Washington; it was sent to the embassy in Guyana and they carried it over to the police department in Guyana. What was sent were fingerprints that had been taken of who we knew to be Mr. Robinson, his physical characteristics and any personal information that we knew, and asking them if they could possibly — positively identify him for us, due to the fact that through interviews and information that we got off the streets that Mr. Robinson was in fact a citizen of Guyana. The Guyana police were helpful in that they provided us an extract of previous convictions. I have the official document that was — that's signed with me at this point in time, if the Court would like to compare it. I would only like to state that it is accurately reflected on the presentence report.

Additionally, what I think is extremely interesting is the fact that the law enforcement authorities in the United States, we were not aware of a specific identifying tattoo on Mr. Robinson until the Guyana police department identified this individual that they knew to be Ishmael Lewis because they compared fingerprints and found it to be an exact match with the ones that we sent down. Then the Guyana police department said, And on top of that you might want to check and see if he's got a tattoo on his forearm, and it was of a cross. On — it was of a cross and a church, and this was — also, he had a scar near his inner right elbow. Special Agent Hugh Graham from INS went out to the jail, saw Mr. Robinson, and in fact lo and behold those identifying characteristics were there that we did not know of before that time. And therefore, I think that that conclusively shows that this defendant is in fact Ishmael Lewis from Guyana.

MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, if I might comment, during trial when that observation occurred, counsel was not notified. And, in addition to the INS agent, Detective Reddish, who was actively involved in the investigation of this case and at counsel table throughout this lengthy trial accompanied him, without word to counsel. There was a motion filed to suppress any information that was obtained from that illegal viewing. We view that as illegally-obtained evidence that helped them in this purported identification. I realize that there's case law —

THE COURT: Wait a second, whoa. What illegal viewing?

MS. BUTLER: The — they appeared at the jail and my client had no legal counsel present, no notification to legal counsel, and he was required to come out and show them his arm.

THE COURT: Heavens to Betsy. Terrible. MS. BUTLER: And I understand that at the sentencing stage the Court may at its discretion — there is case law to support you may consider illegally obtained evidence, but as far — we do object to the way that that allegedly distinguishing tatto was — and information on that was obtained.

And as far as my representation that the criminal history is incorrect, I did not mean to say that, if that's what I've said. What I meant to say is that the information in the presentence investigation report is incomplete. There is additional information on this sheet to which the prosecutor refers, and that is why I would like it attached in addition to what is contained in the presentence investigation report.

THE COURT: Let me see this sheet you're talking about, Mr. Devereaux.

MR. DEVEREAUX: Yes, sir.

MS. BUTLER: In addition, your Honor, as far as the reference to the two transcripts, the reference to the phone call with Dexter has not been mentioned in the presentence investigative report, was not mentioned at the conference that I had with the probation officer and Mr. Devereaux.

The other transcript was mentioned and I would request that although the Court has heard that at trial when they were played, Mr. Fortenberry did not — did read, I believe, the transcript as far as Trial Exhibit Number 65. He did not listen to the tape, I don't believe. And it might be beneficial to have copies of both those exhibits attached to the sentencing record.

THE COURT: Mr. Courson, will you make a copy of this, please, and attach it to the presentence investigation report.

MR. DEVEREAUX: I have a copy you can use, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

THE CLERK: I will, your Honor.

THE COURT: No, you won't have to. Turn around. Attach a copy of that to the presentence investigation report, will you?

MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, could I request at this time that I be provided a copy as well? I have not been able to get one.

THE COURT: You're going to get a copy. We're going to give you a copy of it.

MS. BUTLER: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Fortenberry, you are hereby sentenced to go listen to that tape and to make a copy of this for Ms. Butler.

PROBATION OFFICER FORTENBERRY: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well. And we'll return the original of this document entitled Extract of Previous Criminal Convictions from Criminal Register from the —Criminal Records Office in Guyana. Return that to Mr. Devereaux, please.

Now, what else can we talk about?

MS. BUTLER: That would conclude our objections, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The Government is concluded?

MR. DEVEREAUX: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. With regard to the objection to Attachment A as — I'm referring now to the defendant Robinson's objection to presentence report filed with this Court February 27, or at least received by the probation office February 27, leaving lots of time for the Court to consider it, with regard to objection — to the Attachment A, that objection is overruled.

With regard to the objection to paragraph 5, which appears to be based upon counsel's persistence in insisting that this was multiple conspiracies as opposed to the single. conspiracy for which the jury found the defendant guilty, that objection is overruled and the Court finds the facts as stated by the probation office to be accurate.

With regard to the objection to paragraph 6, the Court likewise finds the probation officer's recitation of the facts to be accurate and adopts those facts.

With regard to the objection to paragraph 7, the Court finds the probation officer's facts to be accurate and adopts those facts.

With regard to the objection to paragraph 8, the Court again adopts the facts as found by the probation officer.

With regard to the objections to paragraph 9, the Court finds the facts as stated by the probation officer to be accurate and adopts those.

You didn't object to paragraph 10, which says, "None." Okay.

With regard to the objection to paragraph 11

MS. BUTLER: That was corrected, your Honor, and the objection was withdrawn. The correct date should be June 6th.

THE COURT: Yes, he was arrested on June 6th and turned over to the feds on June 16th. Isn't that right?

MS. BUTLER: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: And that's what the correction was.

PROBATION OFFICER FORTENBERRY: Yes, your Honor.

MS. BUTLER: He was arrested, though, by federal agents.

THE COURT: Okay, we've got that resolved.

No objection to paragraph 12.

With regard to the objection to paragraph 13, the Court finds that the defendant indeed did obstruct justice, or attempt to, and that it is appropriate and the Court finds those facts to be accurate.

Now, with regard to the objection to paragraph 14 —

MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I'll withdraw that.

THE COURT: I don't understand it. Okay, that's withdrawn.

With regard to the objection to paragraph 15, which is the base offense level, the Court finds it correct, that the base offense level is indeed 36.

Now, to paragraph 16, again, this is based upon the persistence of counsel, that this was not a single overall conspiracy, and no question in this Court's mind that the defendant used firearms in perpetrating this crime. So that objection will be overruled and the Court will find that those facts are correct.

The Court will also overrule the objection to paragraph 18, which the Court finds appropriately awards another four points to the offense level for the defendant's being the organizer and leader of this criminal activity.

Paragraph 19 again attacks the adjustment for obstructing of justice which the Court has already alluded to and which the Court finds to be accurate and appropriately increasing the offense level.

The Court will overrule the objection to paragraph and make a finding that the defendant's true name is Ishmael Lewis, date of birth September 9, 1954.

The Court overrules defendant's objections to the inclusion in this report of the juvenile and adult convictions in Guyana, although, as counsel admits, they do not form any part of adopting the guidelines under the sentencing guidelines.

And I believe the final objection, if there is any finality to this — no, it's not final, I guess — yes, that's withdrawn. Yes, paragraph 57, which apparently also objects to paragraph 65 and 66.

MS. BUTLER: But, your Honor, that goes back to the identity, the statements in those paragraphs as to identity, and —

THE COURT: What, in 57?

MS. BUTLER: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right, those objections will be overruled.

The Court detetmines that the applicable guidelines are as follows: Total offense level of 44, criminal history category of III, which provides for a sentence of life imprisonment under the guidelines, a five-year supervised release, a 25,000 to $12 million fine, and a $200 special assessment, that being $25 on each of the four counts of which the defendant was found guilty.

Now, Gregory Robinson, on December 13, 1989, you were found guilty by a jury of count one of the indictment charging a conspiracy to manufacture, distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of the laws of the United States; count two, charging possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base; count three, charging possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base; and count four, charging possession of 500 grams or more of cocaine with intent to manufacture cocaine base. The Court hereby adjudges you guilty of all four of those charges.

Now, do you know of any reason why this Court should not now proceed with the imposition of sentence?

MS. BUTLER: No, sir.

THE COURT: Do you wish to make a statement or to present any information in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed?

MS. BUTLER: No, sir.

THE COURT: The Government care to be heard?

MR. DEVEREAUX: Yes, your Honor.

Your Honor, as this Court is well aware, when operating under the sentencing guidelines there are times when sentencing guidelines just don't fit the crime. Sometimes the sentencing guidelines find prosecutors and judges in fashioning an appropriate sentence because sometimes the guidelines is either — it's too high or it's too low. But, your Honor, in this case the guidelines are life imprisonment and the sentence — it not only fits this defendant's despicable crimes, it fits this defendant and it's just tailor made for him, because there's no other sentence that's appropriate for Mr. Robinson than for him to be locked up in a jail cell until he dies.

The Court's already been made aware and has in fact made a factual finding of his true identity, that it's Ishmael Lewis. We know that he came to this country illegally and we also know that before he came to this country that he was at least arrested 18 times by the time he was 27 years old. You know, once he came into the United States illegally, he went to New York, started a criminal livelihood in New York, and then eventually moved down to northern Florida where he set up business in Jacksonville.

He's a convicted kingpin of a drug organization, probably the largest that Jacksonville has ever seen. He is personally responsible for distributing at least a million dollars of crack cocaine on the streets of Jacksonville, and that simple calculation comes from really just a — almost a two-month span, because if the Court will remember in the testimony from Miss Taylor, also known as Kelly, she testified that she personally drove 20.5 kilograms of powder cocaine up to the Jacksonville area from Miami. At that point in time the going rate for a kilogram of crack cocaine on the streets, if you were selling it as Mr. Robinson was, was approximately $36,000. So just in those two months this organization would have been taking in in excess of $730,000.

But it's not important that this — just that these crimes were committed, but what is really going to be more important and what the sentence should reflect is how these crimes were committed. First, these crimes were committed and made possible by bringing powder cocaine up to Jacksonville, Florida. And this was done by getting girlfriends to act as camouflage, because it's less likely that they're going to stop, because God forbid that Mr. Robinson would ever be carrying this powder cocaine up from Miami to Jacksonville. No, he has nineteen-year-old girls do it for him and makes them follow in cars behind him or in front of him with like the first time that Carolyn Taylor went down to Miami, she's got $58,000 in cash on the front seat.

Additionally, how did he commit this crime? He uses juveniles to sell the drugs on the streets. In fact, he had the juvenile in the car that was escorting the April 6th shipment of crack cocaine from Orlando to Jacksonville. When Nicole Sewell and Roberto Brown were stopped, a man by the name — or actually a boy by the name of Panama was in the car with Bruce Lewis, who is a juvenile.

He ruled his empire with violence. He always had a gun. And the worst part is that we know that he used it. We know that at 1531 Louisiana Street he shot a man by the name of Uzoo in the foot. I recall that was at the end of a day and Alexander Gardner was testifying and everybody sort of got a laugh about how Uzoo was screaming, there was blood all over and he was shot in the foot, but it's no joke that this man was using guns to control his empire.

Additionally, he couldn't carry enough guns, so he hires the Marines and has Marines come down from Camp LeJeune on their weekends for a little weekend maneuver. And in fact, has the Marines attempt to murder a man by the name of Courtney Winston Cupidor, also known as Fat Head, and their payment for that is $1200. And apparently that's the price that Mr. Robinson puts on life.

He has just in this court — we had pictures of over thirteen crack houses that Mr. Robinson was using to sell his drugs. He's tooling around Jacksonville showing off in his BMW, driving around in his Porsche, and also using the Jeep that he had intended to send to Guyana.

He's also the man of flash. And in this organization we had like $88,000 and — I'll keep moving, your Honor — he had $88,000 of jewelry. The bottom line comes down, your Honor, that this is a despicable offense, that this crime — that this defendant has committed. He obstructs justice. In fact, I think you could really call it, he was attempting to obstruct justice even in this courtroom when he jumps over halfway across this table on the second Government witness, when she's scared to death to come in here and she's coming in to provide the evidence that she's aware of Mr. Robinson's dealings and is screaming at her, "You never seen me in your life." There's no doubt that the only reason he was trying to do that is to scare that young lady to death.

One sad note here is that we're going to end up having — "we" being the United States taxpayers — are going to have to pay to support him in jail for the rest of his life. And at that point, even if he lives for thirty more years, we're looking at a price tag of over $430,000. But at least there we can put a price on it. And what we can't put a price on is what he has already done and what damage he has already caused to society. And I think, really, we can get a mental picture of exactly what he has caused from the testimony of the witness that he jumped across the table at, the second Government witness, Lynn Copeland, when she said and described the people around the crack houses as being the dawn of the dead. And we hope that he goes to jail until he's dead.

THE COURT: Thank you for helping me to believe that I'm so young that I was born yesterday.

All right, Mr. Robinson, the Court having asked the defendant why judgment should not now be pronounced, and no cause to the contrary appearing to the Court, and the defendant and his attorney having made — well, the defendant not having made a statement on his behalf, nor has his attorney, except to object to the certain provisions of the presentence investigation report —

MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, if I might now, I would like to object to the rendition of facts that Mr. Devereaux has just given the Court.

THE COURT: You just interrupted me.

MS. BUTLER: I apologize, if I could —

THE COURT: All right, go ahead.

MS. BUTLER: If — I think it typifies or exemplifies the overkill by the Government throughout this trial. And I think Mr. Devereaux's comment or attempt to make Mr. Robinson larger than Carlos Lehder, is just — is a statement in and of itself. We object to his factual rendition. And I'm sure that the Court is well aware of the facts, having sat through a very lengthy trial.

THE COURT: Now maybe I was born this morning. I think I sat through this trial, and I don't think there's any overkill at all. The overkill is against the United States Government because, as Mr. Devereaux said, we've got to support this bum the rest of his life. This guy from Guyana, who comes up here and perpetrates all these crimes and ruins this society. Yes, I sat through this trial, and having sat through this trial, you're now going to hear what I think of it.

The Court having reviewed the presentence report, and pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it is the judgment of the Court that the defendant, Gregory Robinson, is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of life as to counts one and two.

Further, as to counts three and four, it's the judgment of this Court that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to serve forty years imprisonment as to each count, consecutive. That's eighty years on top of your life sentence.

If the defendant should, by any stretch of the imagination, receive any authorized release from imprisonment because some bureaucrat thought differently, he shall be placed on supervised release for a term of five years. And while on supervised release he shall comply with the standard conditions adopted by this Court in the Middle District of Florida.

Further ordered that defendant shall pay the United States a fine of $50,000, and also he shall pay the $200 assessments as is required by act of Congress.

The Court finds no reason to depart from the sentence called for by application of the guidelines inasmuch as the facts as found are of the kind contemplated by the Sentencing Commission.

The defendant is hereby remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal to await designation by the Bureau of Prisons.

You are also advised it is your right to appeal from this judgment and sentence within ten days from this date. And no extension of time will be granted. Failure to appeal within the ten-day period shall be waiver of your right to appeal. The Government may also appeal from this sentence.

You are advised that you are entitled to the assistance of counsel in taking an appeal, and if you are unable to afford one, a lawyer will be provided for you.

Mr. Marshal, take the defendant away, please.

(Proceedings as to Gregory Robinson concluded at 10:15 a.m.)

CERTIFICATE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT) MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA)

I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript is a true and correct computer-aided transcription of my stenotype notes taken at the time and place indicated therein.

Registered Professional Reporter, Certificate of Merit, National Shorthand Reporters Association.

A. The hood of my car was opened up.

Q. Which car was this?

A. The Mercury Topaz.

Q. And what happened?

A. They was placing packages in the car.

Q. When we talk about "they" was, who was doing this?

A. Dusty and Eddie.

Q. Were doing what?

A. Placing packages, under the car, under the hood of the car.

Q. Did you see this? How did you — did you see this?

A. Yes.

Q. How?

A. It's a side door that leads out to the garage.

Q. All right. And where were you in regards to that side door?

A. I had opened the door.

Q. All right. Did you observe what was being placed under the hood of the car?'

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was it?

A. Cocaine.

Q. All right. How do you know that it was cocaine?

A. Because they told the. Mr. Robinson told me.

Right down there in southern Florida he told you?

A. Yes.

MS. BUTLER: I would object.

MR. RIVERS: Object.

MS. BUTLER: On the grounds of hearsay.

MR. RIVERS: I might like to add since, too, your Honor, since the witness did not see it, that the answer be stricken. She was — it was — she has no personal knowledge; it was relayed to her by hearsay.

THE COURT: All right. Your objection is overruled. Request denied.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. All right. How many packages, and if you could,

describe these packages for the jury.

A. Yes, sir. There were four packages and they were about the size of two bricks placed side by side.

Q. What kind of bricks?

A. That you build houses with.

Q. Like the small red ones?

A. The small red ones. And it was wrapped in brown paper as you would be mailing a package off, that kind of paper, and it was dark brown tape wrapped around it.

Q. Okay. Do you know where under the hood that these packages were put or placed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where was that?

A It was placed under the heater, the heater vent.

Q. Under the hood?

A Yes, sir.

Q. At any time that day did you leave Miramar, leave the house?

A Yes, sir.

Q. When, approximately, was that?

A It was that night.

Do you remember about what time?

A It was about eleven that night, 11 o'clock. All right. And how did you leave?

A I left alone.

Q. Did you leave in a car?

A Yes, sir.

Q. In which car was that?

A The white Topaz Mercury that I drove back.

Q. Is that the car that had the hood up?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Where did you drive to?

A I drove to Orlando.

Q. Did anyone ask you to do that for them? You know, why did you drive from Miramar to Orlando?

A I was following Dusty and he was driving the white Dodge Aries. He led me into Orlando.

Q. Was he riding with anyone else in the vehicle?

Q. How did you know that?

A Because he told me.

Q. Who is "he"?

A Mr. Robinson.

Q. How much and what form, you know, packaging, if you could describe it again for us, was being placed under underneath the hood of the car?

A It was four packages and there were like two bricks side by side, that size.

MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I would object to the statement made by Mr. — allegedly made by Mr. Robinson and also the same objection voiced earlier by Mr. Rivers as to her lack of personal knowledge as to what was there, and move to strike.

THE COURT: Objection overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Were these identical in packaging as the ones you had seen on the earlier trip?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And were — did you see where they were placed in the car?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where?

A Under the heater vent, the same place.

Q. At any point in time that day did you leave Miramar?

Q. What direction were you headed, ma'am?

A. Jacksonville.

Q. And were you driving?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Which car?

A. The white Mercury Topaz.

Q. The car with the drugs?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who, if anyone, was with you?

A. No one was with me. I was alone.

MR. RIVERS: Excuse me, your Honor. The Court instruct the witness to speak into the mike? I'm having problems hearing her.

THE COURT: Push that microphone, bend it down a little bit. All right, let's see if that helps.

MR. RIVERS: Thank you, your Honor.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. All right. Let's try to speak up so everybody can hear you. Okay?

A. Okay.

Q. So you were driving back to Jacksonville alone?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Well, what happened to Mr. Robinson?

A. He caught the plane.

Q. From where?

A. From Miami.

Q. And where did — do you know where he was headed?

A. To Jacksonville. He said he'd meet me there when I get there.

Q. Did you ever arrive here in Jacksonville?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what location did you go to?

A. We went to Naldo.

Q. And that is the same house that you had been to before?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who, if anyone, was at that — Naldo apartment when you got there?

A. No one was there.

Q. Did anyone ever show you at the apartment?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who?

A. Dusty.

Q. Was he accompanied by anyone?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And who was that?

A. Eddie Baria.

Q. The man that — whose house you had just left?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was anyone else there at the house?

A. No, sir.

Q. Was the car ever unloaded with the drugs?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And how was that done?

A. He told me to pop the hood of the car and — Dusty told me to pop the hood of the car and Eddie and Dusty took the drugs out of the car.

Q. All right. Do you know if anything was done with those drugs?

A. He took them upstairs to the apartment.'

Q. All right. Anything further?

A. No, sir.

Q. After this car was unloaded, what did you do?

A. I went home.

Q. Did you make any other trips to Miami?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you remember those trips?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you please tell us about the next one. When was it?

A. It was the first part of December and Dusty called me and he say Eddie wanted me to go to Miami with him, Eddie —

Q. Eddie who?

A. One of Dusty's friends, Sam Clark.

Q. The guy goes by two different names?

Q. And what happened when he got back to the hotel?

A. He told me we was fixing to go back to Jacksonville.

Q. All right. So did you go back to Jacksonville?

A. Not just yet. We went somewhere in Miami.

Q. Where did you go?

A. I think it was off of 25th Avenue, some mini mall.

Q. Mini what?

A. Mini mall. It looked like a mini mall; it had an auto detailing store there.

Q. All right.

A. And then —

Q. Why did you go to that location?

A. He told me to drive there. And then I popped the hood of the car and they was adjusting, I guess, to see if it was placed in there right.

Q. If what was placed in there right?.

A. The cocaine.

Q. Did you see the cocaine on this occasion?

A. I saw one at that time.

Q. At that time saw one what?

A. Package.

Q. Do you have any idea of what, you know, weight that these packages are?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. RIVERS: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: On what grounds?

MR. RIVERS: Your Honor, Mr. Devereaux hadn't qualified this witness to attest to the fact of how much it weighed or what the actual weight, your Honor. I could pass on the fact that she may recognize cocaine, but I don't think she's a qualified expert to testify how much it weighed.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Do you have any idea, ma'am, what the weight of these packages of cocaine were?

A. Yes, sir, they was a kilogram.

Q. Kilogram?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. All right. So you got to this auto detailing place, they lifted the hood of the car. What happened then?

A. After they adjusted the back, then he closed the hood down. After we put gas in the car and I went back to Jacksonville.

Q. Whatever happened to this fellow that got lost?

A. He got up with Eddie, somehow he was there.

Q. He was where?

A. In Miami.

Q. At the auto dealer place?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. All right. So after the hood was closed on the — on your aunt's car, did you travel anywhere?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where to?

A. We went to Jacksonville. I was led by Eddie and Wesley; they was in the Z 24.

Q" Where were they in regards to you?

A. They were in front of me. We was going back to Jacksonville.

Q. Did you arrive in Jacksonville?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And where did you go?

A. We went on Riverside, I don't know the street.

Q. The area was Riverside?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what happened with regards to what was under the hood of the car?

A. He told me to pop the hood and then —

Who is he?

A. Eddie.

Q. Eddie, Sam Clark?

A. Sam Clark.

Q. And did you do that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And where were you located at this time?

A. We was at a house. It was a house, parked behind a house and Sam Clark and Wesley, they took the drugs out of the car, out of the — that was placed under the vent again.

Q. Did you see what happened to these drugs?

A. No, sir.

All right. You said down in Miami you saw one package?

A. Right.

Q. How many packages did you see come out of the car?

A. When we got into Jacksonville there was four.

Q. Miss Taylor, did you make any other trips to Miami?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when was that?

A. It was after December.

Q. So it was in January?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Of 1989? This year?

A. No, this one was in December. This other one, it was in December.

Q. Okay. It was in December?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Of 1988?

A. Right.

Q. All right. Tell us about that. Who went, how did you get there, what happened?

A. Well, Dusty and I, we went to Southside Gun and we were shooting in the gun place, you know.

Q. "Him" being Mr. Robinson?

A. Right.

Q. Left with Eddie Baria?

A. Right.

Q. All right.

A. And then they came back, Eddie and Dusty.

Q. All right.

A. And they placed the drugs under the car again.

Q. Where were you this time when this was being done?

A. I was at the house.

Q. All right. How did you see — did you see drugs being placed under the hood of the car?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And where were you when this was being done then?

A. I was standing right beside the car. I was — at that time I was helping place it under the car.

Q. And where did the drugs go?

A. Under the vent, by the heater coolant.

Q. Do you know how many packages went into the car that day?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many?

A. There was four.

Q. And what did these — what did this look like?

A. Like bricks again.

Q. Exactly as you've described before?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you leave Miami?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And where did you go?

A. I went straight to Naldo in Jacksonville.

Q. Did anyone accompany you on your trip?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, then what happened to Mr. Robinson?

A. He caught the plane.

Q. So he flew back again?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he tell you if he was going to meet you or not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And where was he to meet you?

A. He was at Naldo.

Q. At the apartment that you just identified for us?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So is that where you drove?

A. Yes, sir, that's where I drove.

Q. Before getting to Naldo, did anything happen on your trip up?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was that?

A. I got stopped by the police.

A. Dusty and Lenny was in Dusty's white Jeep.

Q. All right.

A. And Mike and his girlfriend was in a gray Honda Accord.

Q. And what were you in?

A. I was in the white Mercury Topaz. Q. And who was with you?

A. Panama.

Q. Where did you drive to?

A. We drove to Miramar in Miami.

Q. And to what location?

A. Eddie Baria's house.

Q. Can you tell the Court what time you arrived?

A. We arrived that morning about 6:30 or 7 o'clock.

Q. And after arriving'at that time, what happened?

A. We all went to sleep that morning and then later on that afternoon they had left — Eddie had left and then Dusty had left.

Q. Had left where?

A. I don't know where they went, but they left the house at Miramar. And Lenny, he had left; he went to Miami Garden Drive, some apartments over there.

Q. At any point in time was the hood of any car raised?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was that? Whose car?

A. My car again.

Q. All right. And why was it raised?

A. They placed some drugs under the car.

Q. Who is "they"?

A. Eddie, Dusty, Lenny, and Mike and his girlfriend was standing out there.

Q. Where was this happening then?

A. At Miramar.

Q. What location of the house?

A. The garage.

Q. Did you notice how many packages were put under the hood?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many? Think hard. If you don't know, you don't have to —

A. It was three — it was four package but the total amount was three keys.

Q How do you know that?

A. Because Dusty told me when we got to Jacksonville.

MS. BUTLER: Objection, your Honor. Same grounds as before.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. All right. You did come back to Jacksonville?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In which car?

A. The white Mercury Topaz.

Q. All right. And did anyone accompany you in that car?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who was that?

A Panama.

Q. All right. And where did you drive to?

A We drove to Naldo.

Q. And at Naldo what happened?

A Me and Panama, we reached Naldo, we was waiting on Dusty

and Eddie, they flew up, and he was real surprised how fast we got there. And then —

Q. How — did you get — how did you get there fast?

A We followed this blue Mercedes Benz on the expressway.

Q. On the highway?

A Yes, sir.

MR. DEVEREAUX: Your Honor, at this time I would offer what has been marked as Government's Exhibit Number 1 B, the photograph identified as Panama, and ask that this be accepted into evidence at this time, once laying the foundation that this individual did accompany Miss Taylor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Objection will be continued to be sustained.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX: Did you make any other trips down to Miami?

A Yes, sir.

A. About 2 o'clock that afternoon because we left that morning.

Q. And what time did you arrive — where did you go there in Miami?

A. We went to Miramar.

Q. And whose house did you go to?

A We went to Eddie Baria's house.

Q. When you got there, did you have the same type of experience with the hood of your car coming up?

A. No, sir.

Q. What happened?

A We had all went out that night, me and Jennifer, Lenny. Eddie didn't go, but just me, Jennifer, Lenny and Jardean.

Q. Went out in Miami?

A. Right.

Q. All right.

A And then we went to the Shell Cove Apartment, Miami Garden Drive, and we went up in the apartment.

Q. Who is "we"?

A. Me and Jennifer. Lenny was already up there. He went up there before we did.

Q. All right. And what happened there in that apartment?

A It was some drugs that was cooked up, that was already cooked up and they was laying it to dry.

Q What kind of drugs?

A. Crack cocaine.

Q. Could you describe what this looked like?

A. It was brown and it looked like a pancake, it was about the size of a plate.

Q. Had you ever seen anything like this before?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What happened with regards to that pancake of crack that you just described?

A. The next day me and Jennifer and one of Lenny's girlfriends, friends, went with us. We drove back to Jacksonville.

Q. Did you have anything with you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was that?

A. We had the drugs with us.

Q. All right. And which drugs were these?

A. The drugs that was on the table when we went in the apartment.

Q. Did somebody buy those, or why did you take those drugs from that apartment?

A. We was instructed to take it by Lenny.

Where did you go, the three of you in the car?

A. We went to Orlando.

Q. Where was the crack cocaine located in the car?

A. It was in the front on the passenger side in a brown

Q. Which car?

A. The Mercury Topaz.

Q. And what was your response?

A. I said that I'll go.

Q. So you accompanied her?

A Right.

Q. So the two of you went to Orlando?

A Right:

Q. In your aunt's car?

A Right.

Q. What happened when you got to Orlando?

A We went straight to Continental Boulevard.

And whose house was that?

A That was Lenny's house.

Q. And what happened when you got to Continental Boulevard?.

A. Dusty was there and Lenny was there and Mae was there. And he had told me to go pick up one of his workers at Princewood, at his house at Princewood and then come back to Continental Boulevard.

Q. When you refer to worker, what do you mean?

A He was selling drugs out of a house that Dusty used.

Q. What was this person's name?

A. Indian.

Q. Is that a nickname or is that just what you knew him by?

A. Yes, sir.

After you picked this individual up from Princewood, what did you do?

A We went back to Continental Boulevard and then Nikki had got a bag and then we went back to Jacksonville.

Q. So what was in this bag?

A Drugs.

Do you know what type of drugs?

A Yes, sir.

How much?

A It was —

What type of drugs?

A It was crack cocaine.

Do you know how much?

A It was thirteen bombs.

What is a bomb?

A It's a little Ziploc bag, they put a hundred pieces in each and each of the pieces is worth ten dollars apiece, so it would equal up to a thousand dollars.

In one bomb?

A In one bomb.

And there were thirteen of these?

A Yes.

How did they get from Orlando to Jacksonville?

A Nikki drove back, I was with her, and Indian was with us too.

Q. And what time was that?

A It was like — it was like 2 o'clock, 2 o'clock that afternoon.

Q. Are you guessing or do you know?

A It I know because when I left to go to Jacksonville, when I got to Jacksonville it wasn't dark yet, it was like nearly getting dark, but it wasn't quite dark.

Q. This was in December?

A. Yes, ma'am, this trip was in December.

Q. Well, it gets — doesn't it get dark in December around five or 5:30?

A. Well, I told you it wasn't really dark, it was just — it was wasn't quite dark I went to Jacksonville. It take about roughly six hours to get from Jacksonville to Miami. I usually make the trip in like four and a half hours.

Q. Why do you do that? I mean why are you able to make a six-hour trip in four and a half hours?

A. I was speeding.

Q. With four kilos of cocaine in your car, you speed?

A Right. Yes, ma'am. That was the time I got stopped by the police.

Q. Was that on trip four?

A I'm not for sure, but it was when I had four kilos in the car, I do know that.

Q Well, you had four kilos every time, didn't you?

A. No, there was four kilos, but then there was a time I told you I had four package but it was three kilos; two of the packages were half a keys.

Q. But most of the time of the six trips you made, only one time did you have three and all the other times you had four, according to your testimony; is that correct?

A It was four times I had four, one time I had three, and the sixth trip, that's when I brought back the stuff that was already cut up and bagged, so I don't know how much that was, since it was already cut and bagged.

Q. That's the stuff you got from — the sixth trip to Continental?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. But it couldn't have been — you couldn't — Dusty could not have come back at two o'clock if he were back in Jacksonville before dark?

A. No, he came back around two. When he got back I left. I left as soon as — after they put it in there and I got back. Now, like I said, I got — it got — it do get dark early in December but it was what I'm saying, it had just gotten dark, it wasn't fully dark like nine or ten o'clock in the night.

Q. But you said it wasn't dark yet?

A. No, it was — to me it wasn't dark. I mean the sun was down, it was just — it just turned dark, but to me that's

A. No, there was four kilos, but then there was a time I told you I had four package but it was three kilos; two of the packages were half a keys.

Q. But most of the time of the six trips you made, only one time did you have three and all the other times you had four, according to your testimony; is that correct?

A. It was four times I had four, one time I had three, and the sixth trip, that's when I brought back the stuff that was already cut up and bagged, so I don't know how much that was, since it was already cut and bagged.

Q. That's the stuff you got from — the sixth trip to Continental?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. But it couldn't have been — you couldn't — Dusty could not have come back at two o'clock if he were back in Jacksonville before dark?

A. No, he came back around two. When he got back I left. I left as soon as — after they put it in there and I got back. Now, like I said, I got — it got — it do get dark

early in December but it was what I'm saying, it had just gotten dark, it wasn't fully dark like nine or ten o'clock in the night.

Q. But you said it wasn't dark yet?

A. No, it was — to me it wasn't dark. I mean the sun was down, it was just — it just turned dark, but to me that's

A. Yes, but he was leaving as we were coming in. He was there, they spoke, they said something, then he left. We stayed longer than he did.

Q. When you entered the apartment then that Mr. Hewitt had just left, did you see any drugs?

A. Yes, with people — I do not know the people, who they were.

Q. What type of drugs did you see?

A. Crack cocaine.

Q. In what form was this crack cocaine?

A. It was, I guess you could say, already in the cooked process.

Q. Well, don't — what did it look like?

A. Creamed rocks, it was —

Q. What were these creamed rocks contained in, if they were in anything?

A. They weren't. Some was laying around, some were contained, but because I didn't know anyone there I wasn't really, you know, being as observant. I just went in with him and he did whatever he had to do and we came back out and left.

Q. Was there furniture inside of that apartment?

A. No.

Q. What — where were these creamed rocks?

A. On the countertop.

Q. Were they in any type of arrangement, a pile, a line?

A. They were laying next to a plate with some razor blades on the side of the plate.

Q. How big was the area that they covered?

A. What do you mean, how big was the plate or how big was the countertop or —

O. How much drugs were there? Can you describe their physical characteristics of the amount of space they took, how high they were?

A. No, because everything was just scattered about just like a cluttered mess.

O. If we called them marbles, do you have any idea how many marbles? Were there more than five?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately —

A. I would say twenty or more, thirty or more. There were some that were loose, some were not.

Q. Did you see any other type — anything else that we might call paraphernalia, drug paraphernalia around the cream-colored rocks?

A. A scale was there.

Q. What type of scale was this, the type we would weigh ourselves on?

A. No. It was the spur —

MS. BUTLER: Objection, leading. this year, 1989?

A. Yes.

Q. How did the first crack cocaine that ever was sold out of the apartment get there?

A. By Dusty.

Q. Were you present?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us what happened?

A. We got finished putting up the curtains and his gun pouch was sitting on the —

Q. Whose gun pouch?

A. Dusty's. Was sitting on the hot water tank. And he reached in there and unzipped it and pulled out a big bag of crack.

Q. What kind of bag was it, what was it made out of?

A. Plastic bag.

Q. What color was it?

A. See-through plastic bag.

Q. Could you see what was inside the bag?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. Crack.

Q. How was the crack — I mean what did it look like? Was it a big chunk?

A. No, bagged up in little bags.

Q. Had you seen anything like that before?

A. Yes.

Q. Is crack cocaine in that composition that looks like that in the bag, is it called anything special?

A. Dimes.

Q. All right. That's — what is a dime?

A. A small piece of rock.

Q. Okay. How much does a small piece of rock cost, if you sell it on the streets?

A. Ten dollars.

Q. What is that made out of?

A. Cocaine, baking soda.

Q. In this plastic bag, do you know how many — that Mr. Robinson pulled out of his gun pouch, do you know how many pieces of crack or these dimes were in there?

A. Two hundred.

Q. How do you know that?

A. It was two bombs, two thousand dollars.

Q. When he gave this to you — did he give this to you?

A. No, he did not.

Q. Who did he give it to?

A. Dexter.

Q. When he gave that to. Dexter, was it daytime or nighttime?

A. About — it was going on nighttime, about 6 o'clock. for that to be sold?

A. Not long.

Q. When you say not long, are we talking about a week?

A. About twenty, thirty minutes.

Q. Over the period of time that this Louisiana Street house was open, how would you get drugs? Can you tell me what the normal day in a crack house — that crack house was?

A. Well, when they ran out, just go to the phone booth or either go home.

Q. Where was the phone booth?

A. Down the streets.

Q. What would you do?

A. Go down and beep.

Q. Who would you beep?

A. Dusty beeper.

Q. You would call him?

A. Yeah, at the beeper.

Q. And what would happen when you — how do you call a beeper? How do you do that?

A. Call the number and wait till it beep.

Q. And then what do you do?

A. Push this number in and whatever code you have, mash the mute button and hang up.

Q. So after you went through this process, what would happen?

A. Wait for him to call back.

Q. And who would call back?

A. Sometime it be Dusty, might be Nikki, it might be Kelly, or Bruce.

Q. All right. When you would call, what would you ask for, if anything?

A. Tell him we's finished.

Q. Finished with what?

A. The stuff.

Q. Would you say crack cocaine?

A. The stuff.

Q. Why would you just say the stuff?

A. Because he didn't like to talk drug talk on the phone.

Q. Did — after you made a call like this, how quickly would you have any new supplies?

A. About fifteen, twenty minutes.

Q. How much crack cocaine would be in that house at one time?

A. Sometimes two, three thousand at a time.

Q. Well, how often would you have to go down to the phone booth and make a call to get another delivery?

A. Sometimes thirty, forty, an hour.

Q. How many times a day?

A. Seven, eight times a day sometimes.

Q. Then why didn't you just have fifteen big bags of crack

A. That's the house where I got arrested at.

Q. And that's — where is that located?

A. That is on Grunthal Street.

MR. DEVEREAUX: Your Honor, may the agents retrieve some of the photographs off the board? We have the board up against the wall and hadn't used it today.

Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. I'm showing you what is marked as Government's Exhibit 5 G and I ask you to identify this building, if you could?

A. It's another house where drugs were being sold out of.

Q. Were you selling at a house located anywhere near these homes?

A. Sir?

Q. Where is it that you were selling drugs out of?

A. The first house you showed me.

Q. The first house where you were arrested?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was Government's Exhibit 5 F?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you tell me how it is you would sell drugs there? How much drugs would you sell, how would your day go?

A. Well, usually, generally I usually sold about ten thousand a day.

Q. Ten thousand what?

A. Dollars worth.

Q. Can you tell me how you came into possession of these drugs?

A. Well, this guy, Terry, would bring them around to me and I would sell them.

Q. Do you know if there was any connection between the location that you were selling these drugs and Lenny, the individual you identified?

A. Well, at first I didn't, you know, but then I started seeing him around there.

Q. What do you mean by you started to see him around there?

A. You know, I seen him and Terry talking and exchanging money.

Q. What do you mean by exchanging money? Can you tell us what you saw?

A. Well, Terry was giving him money — you know, Lenny was giving him orders, you know.

Q. What kind of orders; did you ever hear any of these types of orders?

A. Well, you know, he tell him, do a certain thing.

MS. BUTLER: Objection; improper foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Did you ever hear this man named Lenny give Terry any

Q. And what were these rocks contained in, if they were contained in anything?

A. Little plastic, you know — I don't know, I can't exactly —

Q. How did they seal?

A. Well, you know, they sealed up on the top of them and I can't exactly — little plastic baggies, you know.

MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I would object and ask that the prosecutor let him answer the questions.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Can you tell us how long you worked selling drugs like this? You stated that you got out of jail February 2nd.

A. Well, I believe it was about a month. I worked for him about a month.

Q. What day were you arrested?

A. April the 14th.

Q. Did you sell that day?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So did you sell up to that day?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How often during a work week, what was your work week that you would be selling drugs?

A. Every day.

Q. Seven days a week?

A. Seven days a week.

Q. What were your work hours?

A. Wasn't really any work hours, you know. It was just when I got around there.

Q. Over this average of this month, what was your normal sales during a day?

A. Ten thousand.

Q. Was there any day that it was higher than that?

A. Yes, sir, it was.

Q. Can you tell us what the largest sales day for you was?

A. Thirty thousand.

Q. $30,000?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you sold these drugs, what did you do with the money? Did it go into a type of bank, or do you know where it went?

A. No, sir. Well, I give — I gave the money to Terry.

Q. And did you see what Terry would ever do with this money?

A. Well, he just left, you know, and that was it.

Q. Did you ever see Terry give any money to Lenny?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And where was that at?

A. At the house there on the first picture.

Q. During a day, would you stand — where were the sales

Q. Do you remember how high the count got? What do you mean you were counting out? Counting out for what purpose?

.A. To putting them by the hundreds into Ziploc bags.

Q. Do you remember how many hundreds or how many Ziploc bags were packaged that day or that night?

A. No, sir.

Q. Was it more than five?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Many more than that? Do you have any — any idea on even approximately how many?

A. It was more than five but I don't know how much more than five.

Q. You indicated through your testimony that you had seen this before, the crack cocaine other times in this house; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know how many times during a week's period you would see this, if at all?

A. Two to three times a week.

Q. How soon did you see crack cocaine after you got to this country?

A. Sometime in March.

Q. Of 1988?

A. '89.

Q. Of 1989? three times per week?

MR. RIVERS: Objection, your Honor; leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. From the first time you saw cocaine in March of 1988 to the last time you saw cocaine on May 27th —

MS. BUTLER: Objection.

MR. DEVEREAUX: Excuse me, '89.

MS. BUTLER: Objection. She's not said that she saw it, I don't believe.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. 1989, to May of 1989, how often did you see cocaine per week —

MR. RIVERS: Your Honor —

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. — in that house?

MR. RIVERS: I'm going to have to object to that, your Honor. Mrs. Hamilton just stated she was arrested on May 27th, 1989. I don't know how counsel going to find out whether or not she saw cocaine when she was in jail.

THE COURT: When what?

MR. RIVERS: Mrs. Hamilton, your Honor, stated she had been had been arrested on May 27th, 1989, and Counselor just asked had she seen cocaine in June of 1989.

MR. DEVEREAUX: Your Honor, if I did state that, I apologize and I was mistaken; but I believe I stated as an end was May 27th, 1989.

THE COURT: I thought the question was — and I may be mistaken, but — between March and May —

MR. DEVEREAUX: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — of 1989, how often on a weekly basis did you see cocaine in that house.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Can you answer that question?

A. Can't remember, sir.

Q. Did you see it every week?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see it every day of the week?

A. No, sir.

Q. How many days of the week did you see it there?

MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, she's answered that she couldn't remember and I would submit it's asked and answered and objected to.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. During May — excuse me, from March to May of 1989, did you ever see powder cocaine turned into crack cocaine?

A. I never really see it but I smelled it in the house.

Q. When you smelled this in the house, do you know where it was being manufactured?

A. Yes, sir.

MS. BUTLER: Objection to what she knew as being manufactured.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Where was it being manufactured or made?

A. On Continental Boulevard.

Q. Where in that house?

A. In the kitchen.

Q. Who was involved in making it in that house?

A. Lennox —

MS. BUTLER: Objection. She wasn't there. THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Did you see who was involved in making that crack cocaine in that house?

A. Lennox James.

Q. Anyone else?

A. No, sir.

Q. How often did you see crack cocaine being made in that house?

MS. BUTLER: Objection. Asked and answered.

MR. DEVEREAUX: Your Honor, I believe my earlier questions were just —

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. How —

MS. BUTLER: Your. Honor, I would object. I don't think she said that she ever saw it. She smelled it, if — I would object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. To your knowledge, how often from May — excuse me, from March of 1989 to the time of your arrest, May 27th, 1989, how often was crack cocaine manufactured in that house?

A. Two to three times a week.

Q. Are you aware of where the powder cocaine came from to make the crack cocaine? Do you know where it came from?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know who brought the powder cocaine to that house?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who?

A. Ernest Anderson.

Q. Did you ever see him bring it to the house?

A. Once.

Q. What happened when he brought it to the house; do you remember the time of day?

A. No, sir.

Is this for a round trip?

A. Well, at the time I was just going up. He just — he told me I just had to take a package up. The third trip I didn't pick up any money.

Q. This third trip did you go by yourself?

A. I went by myself.

Q. What did you drive?

A. I drove a rental car.

Q. Where did you get this rental car?

A. From Hertz.

Q. Do you remember what type it was?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Color?

A. No.

O. Where did you go when you went to Orlando?

A. The third trip I went to Lenny's house.

Q. When you went there, were you carrying anything?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Any type of package?

A. Yes.

Q. What type of package were you carrying?

A. It was in a small, wrapped up like in paper, like paper sack like about this size (indicating).

Q. And you have your hands about ten inches apart or twelve inches apart?

A. Yes, about ten to twelve inches apart.

Q. How wide was it?

A. About that thick.

Q. About four inches thick?

A. Yeah, about three to four inches.

Q. Do you know what this contained?

A. At first I didn't, but eventually I found out.

Q. When did you find out?

A. As I was going up I had a lot of thinking —

MS. BUTLER: Objection.

THE COURT: What is the basis of the objection?

MS. BUTLER: As to how he found out. It may require hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Did you ever come to know what you were carrying that third trip to Orlando?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And when was that?

A. On the way up I just thought — and it quite naturally

just all came out, if it was if we was picking up money, for one thing I knew that whatever I was taking, it had to be the same substance.

Q. What were you taking?

A. Cocaine.

Q. Do you know how much cocaine you were carrying?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. What type of cocaine is it your understanding that you were carrying?

A. To my understanding, that he told me it was just powder.

Q. And who was "he" told me it was just powder?

A. Eddie Barias.

Q. Was this at a later trip?

A. No, it was that trip. Or it was after I had came back when I did, I asked him what was it. I had figured it out myself but I asked him anyway what was it, and then he told me.

Q. How did you get to your ultimate destination in Orlando?

A. He gave me — he gave me basic directions how to get there and then he gave me a phone number to call once I got to a certain street.

Q. Who is "he," who gave —

A. Eddie.

Q. Eddie did?

A. Eddie Barias gave me a little route to go on how to get off the — exit to get off on, what road to take, and then when I got to a certain place I just made a phone call.

Q. And do you know who you called?

A. I called Lenny.

Q. Had you ever met this man before?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And how did he pay you?

A. Cash.

Q. And how much?

A. $500 on this one.

Q. Did you make any other trips to Orlando?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When was that; do you remember?

A. I think it was going into March then. I mean May.

Q. May of 1989?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Can you tell me how this trip got arranged?

A. Eddie paged me again.

Q. And did he ask you to do anything?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. I was supposed to go to Dusty's house again, and on that trip when I went to Dusty's.house it was quite a few people over there. It was Dusty, Doreen. That's when I saw him with the glasses. Lenny and Mae and a few other women that I had — you know, people that I had never seen.

Q. Did you carry anything to Mr. Robinson's house on this trip?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that?

A. The same thing, a package.

Q. And did you give that package to anyone while you were in Orlando?

A. I gave it to Dusty.

Q. And where did you give it to Dusty?

A. We had walked like towards the hallway, out of the way of everyone else.

Q. Was it in his house?

A. In his house.

Q. After giving that package to Dusty, what did you do?

A. Then since Lenny and everyone was over there, Mae had rode with me to Lenny's house and I picked up money from there.

Q. Why did you go to Lenny's house? Was this prearranged?

A. I'm not sure. It's just that Lenny just so happened to be there.

Q. Did you talk with Lenny then at Mr. Robinson's house?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did he tell you?

A. He told me to go with Mae to pick up some money.

Q. And you went where?

A. To Lenny's house.

Q. And who accompanied you?

A. Mae.

Q. And what did you get, if anything, at Lenny's house? it?

A. I took that back to Eddie.

Q. Did you make a return trip to Orlando?

A. And then the next day, that was the last trip I had made.

Q. Do you remember when that was?

A. That was either in late May or early June.

O. And where did you go?

A. I went to Lenny's house.

Q. And what did you carry, if anything?

A. I carried cocaine.

Q. And what was it wrapped in, if anything?

A. It was wrapped up in black tape.

O. Other than tape, was it contained in any type of container?

A. No, not that I saw.

Q. How large was this?

A. About the same size, about four inches.

Q. Were you told what was contained in this package?

A. No, but I had known from the previous trips.

Q. And where did you take this package?

A. I took it to Lenny's house.

Q. When did you leave Orlando — or leave Miami?

A. I left late, about 10 o'clock that night.

Q. And whose car were you driving?

A. I had a rental car.

Q. Was anyone with you?

A. No.

Q. And where in the rental car was this package?

A. Yes, someone was with me. My brother-in-law was with

me.

Q. And why did your brother-in-law know what was going on?

A. No, he didn't.

Q. Where was the package in the vehicle?

A. In the trunk.

Q. What time did you get to Lenny's house?

A. About 4 o'clock in the morning.

Q. And did you see anyone there at Lenny's house?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was that?

A. Mae and dreadlock—looking guy that was sleeping on the couch.

Q. What do you mean dreadlock-looking guy?

A. With the long dreads in his head.

Q. Did you do anything with this package that you carried up in the trunk of the car?

A. I handed it to Mae.

O. And did she do anything in response to you handing that to her?

A. Because I didn't even go inside on that trip, I just handed it to her because it startled me to see that guy and, you know, right then I said that's it.

Q. What do you mean that's it?

A. That was it for taking trips. That was a real scary experience, to see somebody I had never seen before, and it was like, you know, it was him, Mae and someone else, like two other people, I guess, had — I woke everybody up by knocking on the door so hard, so they — you know, it was like a few people that was standing there that really shook me up.

Q. Did you ever see any guns on your trips?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did you ever carry a gun?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever use the phone at either Mr. Robinson's house or at Lenny's house?

A. The first time I went I had used a phone at

Mr. Robinson's house, at Dusty's house to call home, tell my wife that I would be home late.

Q. Did you ever — did you ever call — use the phone at anyone's house to call any airlines?

A. At Lenny's house. That was like maybe the one or two trip before the last trip. That's the time that I had flew back to Miami.

THE COURT: Mr. Gray?

MR. GRAY: No questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Redirect.

MR. DEVEREAUX: Nothing, your Honor. THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. DEVEREAUX: Your Honor, at this time the United States would request permission to publish tape number 54 and ask the jurors to turn to tab 54 in their notebooks.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (cont'd)

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Agent Permaul, are you aware of the arrest of Nicole Sewell?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In this conversation between Bruce Lewis and Lennox James, I'd like to direct your attention to the first page of the transcript, approximately in the middle of the page, conversational portion by Mr. Bruce Lewis, where he states, "I, man, I call you to give Naught some bad news because you know you got no way in getting in touch with me."

Do you know who Naught is?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How do you know that?

A. It's a nickname for Mr. Robinson, Gregory Robinson. They caught him Naught or Nautilus.

Q. Were there any other references in any of the tapes that you have listened to during this investigation of Mr. Robinson as Nautilus?

MS. BUTLER: Your Honor, I would object to all of this. And it has never been disclosed to me, I've never heard this before.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BUTLER: It's beyond — I understand, sir? A. Yes, sir.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. The next line by Bruce Lewis, it starts with, "I give these people," and goes down to "food from so."

Can you translate what food is in this context?

A. Food in this contents is the cocaine. And when you're from Guyana and you're coming from somewhere other than where you've been, you refer to it as "so." "I've been so." So they were coming from someplace else.

Q. So "from so" is just a slang?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. The next line by Mr. Bruce Lewis mentions about Devon and Nikki being pulled over by Michael. Who is Michael?

A. Michael is the police.

Q. Turning the transcript to page two, the last large conversational portion by Mr. Bruce Lewis on that page. At the end of that statement it says, "The beast-de-cus find the thing-de-cus." Can you describe what this means?

A. Yes, sir. This is what I told you about earlier discussed, sir, where the de-cus is added on to the end of words to try to hide it or change the sound of it, and the beast-de-cus is the police and the thing-de-cus is the cocaine.

Q. Turning the transcript to page number three, the first conversational portion by Mr. Bruce Lewis mentions, "And then that one got on he big band on him."

Are you aware of what a "big band" is in this context?

A. Yes, sir. If you're from Guyana, a band is what I have on my hand, it's a gold band. And it's a status symbol that you've done fairly well, and a big gold band was one like this (indicating) but a lot larger.

Q. Much wider up the forearm?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In the lower top quarter of the page Lennox James has a portion where he states, "Oh, did they moving loaded," and then Bruce Lewis responds: "Loaded, all like about, um, a key-de-cus."

Can you translate what "moving loaded" means and a "key-de-cus" for us?

A. Yes, sir. Moving loaded mean that they were carrying cocaine, which means that they had cocaine in the car when they were moving. A key-de-cus where — key de-cus is a kilogram of cocaine, key-de-cus.

Q. The next statement I'd like to ask you to translate for us would be "the whole dose." In drug terminology, are you aware of what that would be referring to?

A. Yes, sir, a dose would be like the full amount, and the full amount is a kilogram of cocaine, 2,2 pounds.

Q. About the middle of the page a section by Mr. Lennox James mentions the beast — "She trying to tell me it that come in the crib de-cus when um" — are you aware of what is the beast-de-cus? Is it the same type of interjection of unnecessary words here?

A. Yes, sir, they're calling the police or the

beast-de-cus. And the crib de-cus is the house.

Q. The next conversational portion by Lennox James mentions in the middle line of that conversational portion, states, "Beast-de-cus follow them from J.V." Are you aware from your experience what that would mean?

A. Yes; that the police followed them from Jacksonville.

Q. The very last line by Mr. Bruce Lewis there states, "And then the one that got on the band and he got a Washington license." Are you aware of what that means?

A. Yes. The band is referring, again, to the gold band like I have on and he has an out-of-state driver's license.

Q. On page 5 of the transcript in the lower top quarter of the page, conversational portion by Mr. Bruce Lewis starts

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Agent Permaul, in that conversation between Roberto Brown and Bruce Lewis, I'd like to direct your attention to page two of the transcript, approximately in the middle of the page, where it states, "Nautilus going to bail we, right," and ask if you can identify the individual who is Nautilus?

A. Yes, sir, it's a —

MS. BUTLER: Objection?

A. — nickname for Mr. Robinson.

THE COURT: Objection overruled.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. The conversation at the bottom of the page, Bruce Lewis, it talks about twenty thousand dollars in bail and the IRS's sake. Are you aware from your experience in law enforcement what is meant by that?

A. Yes, sir. He's coming up with a large amount of money and have to post a bond and he's worried that if they come up — if the bond is too high and they have to come up with excesses amounts of money then the IRS would get involved and ask them where did you get the money from. Looking for legitimate source.

Q. On the last page, the only line by Roberto Brown says, "Me only four hundred and Nikki only five hundred." And preceding that, Bruce Lewis says, "And then how much grams."

Can you tell us from your experience in narcotics what that is referring to, please?

A. The amount of grams that they were charged with when they were arrested. He is saying four hundred grams and five hundred grams of cocaine.

MR. DEVEREAUX: No further questions, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Cross-examination.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MS. BUTLER:

Q. Agent Permaul, was this transcript prepared by you, sir?

A. I do not recall, ma'am.

Q. Do you recall at what point you first heard it?

A. No, I do not.

Q. Do you recall if you heard it without a transcript to follow along?

A. I do not recall.

Q. Can you tell us, sir, if this call in comparison to the others is of average difficulty or more or less than average difficulty in understanding?

A. It's about average difficulty.

Q. Would that help you or assist you in any way in determining when you might have encountered this call?

A. No, it does not.

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Do you know what the bail was in this case?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. Do you know who paid it?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Do you know even what these respective individuals who were arrested and charged were charged with?

A. Trafficking in cocaine.

Q. You know that for a fact?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And do you know that the reference to grams and then the explanation of four hundred for one and five hundred for the other, do you know whether that tracks the language in the charging documents for these two individuals?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Do you know any of the circumstances of whether drugs were seized from that vehicle?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. Do you know why either — or have any reason to believe or any basis for a belief as to why they would be charged unevenly?

MR. DEVEREAUX: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MS. BUTLER:

Q. Did you have any involvement in that stop?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. Did you review any documents from that stop?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. So the extent of your knowledge is based upon what is here in this phone call?

A. And speaking to the other agents involved in the case.

Q. Did you ever speak to the other agents on that particular topic?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. I'm sorry, on the stop itself?

A. Just that individuals were arrested.

Q. But not as to the particular charges or the amount of drugs or where the drugs were seized from?

A. Just that the individuals were arrested and a kilogram of cocaine was seized.

Q. Would this be an even breakup of a kilo of cocaine?

A. Kilogram is a thousand grams. Got nine hundred here.

Q. And in your experience as a law enforcement officer, is—

MR. DEVEREAUX: Objection, your Honor; relevancy.

THE COURT: Well, let me hear the question. I can't tell what it is yet.

BY MS. BUTLER:

Q. In your experience as a law enforcement officer, Agent Permaul, is it common that a single kilo is broken down among

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Agent Permaul, in that conversation between Mr. Baria and Mr. Robinson, I direct your attention to page two of the transcript, from approximately the middle of the page down to the end of that page, discussing losing two hundred twenty off that and they keep going back and forth, of losing different amounts in hundreds — or two hundred twenty and talking about a thing being real white. From your experience in narcotics, are you able to translate that for us?

A. Yes, sir. The thing being real white is the cocaine, and he's losing two hundred twenty grams is what he's talking about, because when it's cooked into the crack is what the percentage he's got left. So he's lost two hundred twenty grams out of the thousand grams that was cooked.

What happens is when you cook crack cocaine, when you cook powdered cocaine into crack, you burn off all the adulterates, and so what you have left is just pure crack cocaine. Well, he's lost two hundred twenty some grams, so it was not very pure. He was upset because it was only 78 percent pure in reality, or close to it, and he's complaining because it looked real white. And the white was the adulterate, the cut that they put in the cocaine, and that's why it looked white.

Q. On page three Gregory Robinson states, the fifth conversational piece, "I was mad. All I made off it was twenty-three."

Are you able to tell us what that is?

A. Yes, sir, twenty-three thousand dollars.

Q. Have you done any calculations to approximate whether or not that would be correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what have your calculations led you to?

A. That that would be about what he would make, based on the quality of the crack cocaine.

Q. So that twenty-three thousand dollars off of that one kilo?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. DEVEREAUX: No further questions, your Honor. Oh, your —

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. In the middle of that page it says, under Gregory Robinson and he mentions the word towel. "Today's long gone, then there's one blank towel there already."

What is a towel?

A. It's an ounce.

Q. Excuse me?

A. Yes, sir, an ounce of cocaine.

MR. DEVEREAUX: Thank you. I have no further questions. supply and so forth, the wiretap had only been up two days. Therefore, we were a long ways from reaching our objectives of this wiretap. And we believed that stopping both of the vehicles would have thrown a flag up to everyone, all the

defendants involved, that there was a major investigation taking place on this organization.

Q. Did one of the surveillance vehicles stop the Nissan Stanza, or what type of vehicle did?

A. No, sir, it was — we had contacted — from mobile phones we had contacted the Florida Highway Patrol, who actually made the traffic stop.

Q. Are you aware of where this traffic stop took place?

A. Yes, sir, it took place approximately — well, just north of the Duval-St. Johns County line on Interstate 95, near the intersection of where 295 goes northbound out of 95 as you're traveling northbound on Interstate 95.

Q. And who was stopped? The individuals, not the vehicle.

A. Mr. Roberto Devon Brown and Miss Nicole Sewell.

Q. Are you aware of whether or not a search was conducted of that vehicle?

A. Yes, sir, it was.

Q. And at any point in time did you come to know what was seized from the vehicle?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And what was seized?

A. Approximately 848 grams of crack cocaine.

Q. Did you ever come in possession of that crack cocaine?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And for what purpose?

A. To send to the Miami — DEA laboratory in Miami, Florida.

Q. Where did you send the drugs to the Miami laboratory?

A. Well, Miami is our central office. Jacksonville is nothing but a satellite office of Miami. That's where all of our drugs are tested. The drugs on this investigation have been tested in Miami, therefore we wanted to keep the — keep the continuity of a chemist. Therefore, we sent these drugs to Miami also.

Q. Where did you come into possession of this seized cocaine?

A. I took possession of these drugs at the Jacksonville sheriff's department, at their property room.

Q. And do you know approximately when that was?

A. No, sir, it would have been sometime after the 6th of April.

Q. From the time that you took possession of these drugs to the time that you sent these drugs to the Miami laboratory, where were these drugs kept or maintained?

A. They had been maintained in the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office drug vault.

MS. BUTLER: Thank you.

A. The first item would have been 1475 grams of powder cocaine.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Who found that?

A. I did.

Q. Where did you find that?

A. Hanging above the washer and dryer in a small little utility room in the dining room area of this duplex.

MR. DEVEREAUX: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Handing the witness Government Exhibit Number 15, ask if you can, to identify this.

A. Yes, I can.

Q. And what is that?

A. It's the 1475 grams of powder cocaine that was removed from this — from the house at 4306 Continental Boulevard.

Q. You said that it was in a bag?

A. Yes.

Q. How was the cocaine that you found in the bag?

A. It was hanging from a hook above the washer and dryer, and the bag just kind of looked out of place to me as I looked into the laundry room. And I couldn't visibly see the kilo without tilting the bag down, but once I tilted the bag down it was evident to me that there was a kilo of cocaine inside of it from the way it was packaged.

Q. Was there powder that was visible, or what exactly did you see when you looked into this —

A. When I looked into it I saw this shell and package, and through my experience as a narcotics detective, it's commonplace for a kilo or a kilogram of powder cocaine to be packaged in this foLm.

Q. Once you took possession of that, were there any other items that were found during the search?

A. Yes.

Q. But specifically with regards to this item, what did you do with it once it was taken and you found it? Did you give it to anyone, did you place it anywhere?

MS. BUTLER: Objection to the leading nature of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, it was placed into the property room of the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. And did you do that?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you accompanied by anyone?

A. Yes, I was accompanied by an Orange County detective; he is assigned to the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation, since I had disassembled it, and so I put it in a separate heat seal of my own.

Q. Ma'am, when Exhibit Number 15 was sent to you in Miami, did you perform any analysis on that substance?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And what type of analysis did you perform?

A. I performed GC screen, I performed silver nitrate test.

Q. The GC screen, is that gas chromatography?

A. I perfotined silver nitrate test and I performed gas chromatography with mass spectroscopy and I performed a qualitative by gas chromatography.

Q. Is that the gas chromatography test, is that like a fingerprint or proof positive?

A. The gas chromatography is a confirmatory test, but the mass spectroscopy is a fingerprint, is a positive identification.

Q. And did you perfotm that test on this substance?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And can you tell us what that identified this drug as or this substance as?

A. The powder contained in Government Exhibit 15 is cocaine hydrochloride.

Q. Can you tell us how much the quantity, weight-wise?

A. The powder weighs 1,006 grams or just over a kilogram of cocaine hydrochloride.

A. The infrared spectrometry is the — is a fingerprint type of analysis for this drug.

Q. Again, the bottom line, without going through each and every test in detail, can you tell us with scientific certainty what the substance is that is contained in Government Exhibit Number 16?

A. Yes, sir, the chunks of powder contained in Government's Exhibit Number 16 is cocaine in the base form, is cocaine base.

Q. Also known as crack cocaine?

A. That's correct.

Q. Ma'am, I notice in that exhibit, there is a smaller pouch that has some powder in it, additionally you see some small chunks that almost look like peanut brittle. Are you able to tell us, did you make the powder that was in there?

A. Yes, sir, there is a powdered container in each of the other two exhibits also.

Q. Yes, ma'am.

A. It's used — I took approximately half of this exhibit, which this exhibit contained 33 and four-tenths grams. I took about a half of it, 15 and six-tenths grams, and ground it up in order to get a uniform sample and performed a quantitative analysis on it. It's common practice. And each of those has a smaller bag with ground powder also.

Q. Are you able to tell us what the quality is of this drug?

A. The substance is cocaine base. It's 91 percent cocaine base.

Q. When you receive — have you received small baggies of the little — or the little crack baggies that you see inside that — these evidence bags before?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you aware if fingerprint analysis is ever done on these types of bags?

MS. BUTLER: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Are you aware if there is ever fingerprint analysis done of these small bags?

A. On occasion it is done.

Q. Can you tell us why it's not done in each and every instance?

A. We only —

MS. BUTLER: Objection.

THE COURT: What?

MR. DEVEREAUX: I asked why.

THE COURT: I heard what your question was. I didn't hear anything else. I saw somebody stand up but I didn't hear anything.

MS. BUTLER: I objected, your Honor. approach and retrieve the exhibit?

THE COURT: Wait a second.

Do you have any cross-examination?

MR. DEVEREAUX: Yes, your Honor, but I won't need those.

THE COURT: You won't need that?

MR. DEVEREAUX: No, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Yes, you may pick it up. Mr. Rivers, do you have any questions of the witness?

MR. RIVERS: No, sir, I don't.

THE COURT: Mr. Gray?

MR. GRAY: None, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Cross-examination.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DEVEREAUX:

Q. Small baggies that you found on the right when you walked into that utility shed on the concrete slab, those baggies, how do they compare with the baggies that contained the crack cocaine that was introduced in this case yesterday?

A. They're the same type of baggies.

Q. That's the — seized on 1-95?

A. Yes. That would contain the small one, ten-dollar piece of crack cocaine.

MR. DEVEREAUX: No further questions. Thank you, but middle manage ______ that man here, too, or at least one _____ and that is Douglas

Now, you've learned that the source of this crack cocaine was South Florida, Miami, and it was coming up from Miami. And in fact this man, Mr. Baria, sort of made it all possible. He's the man that had the house where they came down and went down there to Miramar and picked up this dope. In fact, you learned through Kelly about all the trips she had back and forth like a ping-pong ball to Miami. And I asked you at the very beginning of this case, listen to even the first trip, the first trip with that $58,000 that she counted. And remember it traveling down with her, down to Miami sitting right next to her, covered by a coat, and then trip after trip after trip. And she's able to testify to you from this stand and tell you, I saw it going under the hood of my car, my auntie's car. Four kilos at a time, up to Jacksonville, up to Orlando, she carried the drugs, by herself or else with a mule, someone other than management. And in the upper echelon, because they don't want to get caught, they just figured they'll use somebody else, somebody else is going to be that mule, somebody else is going to take the hit, not them.

What else did you learn? You learned about Ernest Anderson. You learned he had some financial problems, and "The" cocaine, "the" cocaine, "the" cocaine that was in that house, "the" cocaine that was being cooked there.

And you've got testimony that you can certainly smell that when it's being cooked.

And what else did Mr. Robinson say in that call? They talk about the two ounces of cocaine, that it's already gone.

You've heard about the stops by the police. You've heard about the stop by Deputy Schnippert, and he told you about the bulletproof vest. The first time that he ever heard or ever found anyone wearing a bulletproof vest. Talked about the guns in the glove box. When he opened the glove box they fell out on the lap, and he's there and had to call for support. And then they find the money. And then the bottom line is, Mr. Dusty Robinson, he doesn't like banks.

You heard of the other stops at Worldwide Motors. Remember the car dealer. He's there negotiating a purchase. You heard it from the car salesman, you heard it from the police officer, and he's saying before — before the police ever came, "Don't call the police, I'm going to be back, if the police are here you're going to be in trouble." And the police came and Chris Jordan was so scared that he couldn't even come in to work the next day because of the threats from Mr. Robinson. talks to Rat and they talk about a bomb. And in that conversation Douglas Hewitt says, "And pick up the thing." "What, the gun?"

"Yeah."

Call number 68, Dreen tells Willie that she's going to get Dougie to drop off eight big cookies, eight big cookies. In call number 68. And you've got it right in front of you when you take these books into the deliberation room.

Willie: "I want eight big cookies."

Dorian Dreen Hunt: "Uh-huh, all right, oh, how you gonna get them, what you gonna do? I can — I might be able to get Dougie to drop them off to you." If he isn't carrying it around in his other business and he isn't too busy with Mercy Drive.

Then call number 69, immediately after that, Douglas Hewitt himself talks about the eight big cookies.

Willie: "You know I want I ain't waiting, I want some big cookies though, you know?"

"Uh-huh."

"I'm over at my sister's house on Mercy Drive." "All right, um, when you want — when you want it?" "Ah, now."

Douglas Hewitt, when do you want it? It's not an agreement to traffic a little bit of crack cocaine? Or is it maybe he's just delivering Girl Scout Cookies?

Call number 72, Mr. Douglas Hewitt is trying to get some youths to work. "None of them banner" — excuse me.

"And Doc tell me trying to get two youth, two youth, Doc trying to tell me get two reliable youth and as soon as he organizes it he can tell me. But I went down thing and he other search the other place too, right?"

"Uh-huh."

"The other place promising I had the way I would set up is promising. You know but I just waiting until you come to for, handle it."

And who is he talking to? His boss, Gregory Robinson.

In call number 76, Hewitt tells Pablo that they're starving. Do you remember that conversation?

Pablo: "Got food in there?"

"No, no food at all there, no, no food at all, no the pot empty. You know in in in the — we we we starve, we starve, we starvation."

Douglas Hewitt: "Starvation, man."

They just don't have the dope, not then.

And then call 77. In call number 77 Gregory Robinson is calling.

Dorian Dreen Hunt: "And tell them to get three thousand bags." Give Dougie one hundred dollars to get three thousand bags, the bags that they use to put the crack cocaine in.

And back to call number 72, because this is very interesting. Call number 72 is when Lennox James is in jail, and Lenny wants somebody to go check his house for him. In fact, he told you that yesterday, he made this call to Dusty. And they talk about who they can get. Lenny James says: "None of them banner by you is straight de-cus," translated, none of those men are straight.

"Yeah, Dougie."

Lennox James: "He could go and see because I got my weights and I got some papers and, you know, soup." "Uh-huh, uh-huh."

"Dougie just walked back in."

"Hey."

"Um, cause he in there, you know, cause when I put, cause I say uh-huh."

Gregory Robinson: "What you want Dougie go by the cribus." The house.

"And see what happen."

"Because Dougie all right."

Dougie was reliable, he could rely on you. And remember you ask, well, what does that hook up with? Lennox James right from the stand yesterday told you he only met the man one time. And so of course Gregory Robinson had to tell right here before you. Looks just like peanut brittle. Deadly peanut brittle.

Now, count three and four. In count three and four, you've got Robinson in it by himself. He's the only one charged in counts three and four. And you can consider those together. Both concerned the drugs that were seized at Continental. You've got the powder cocaine and you've got the crack cocaine seized at Continental.

Now, count number three has to do with the crack cocaine. Here it is. Here is the crack cocaine that Detective Tim Reddish located in that drawer in the bedroom when he just opened it up and there it was. Here it is.

Now, the elements to find Mr. Robinson guilty, the ingredients to this recipe for a conviction of guilty as charged in count three are: That Robinson knowingly and willfully possessed this crack cocaine of five grams or more. And we had testimony that it's certainly much more than five grams from our chemist. And also you've got to find that he possessed these drugs with the intent to distribute them.

Now, count number four, 2.2 pounds of powdered cocaine. Gold. Buying these, you heard the testimony, $14,700 each. Then turning it into crack. And if you want to figure out what they try to make on just the investment here, if you have a business background, take the $14,700 and there is your base price. Then you figure if you cook it down and, as the testimony that we've heard, you end up getting 85, 87 percent powder, sometimes it's even more. So you take, say, 85 percent powder, that's the percentage of it, of the actual cocaine in it, and you cook out all the impurities, so you cook out 15 percent, And this is what you end up getting, this crack cocaine. And you take the weight of these at a quarter or a third of a gram and you multiply it by 850 grams. And you're going to find that it's in the area of in excess of $30,000, that cocaine.

Now, looking at these two together, now,

Mr. Robinson was not in that house when the house was searched. That's a fact. But, again, you don't have to actually have your hands on it, you don't have to have it in your pocket, you don't have to have it in your house, you don't have to even have ever touched it to be guilty of possessing that, because of the conspiracy, because the Judge is going to tell you that once you've got a conspiracy — and you've got that without a doubt from count one — you take Mr. Robinson and you find that there were two conspirators, at least, those possessing in the house: Lennox James, Alice Mae Hall, Leslie Hamilton, in the house there at Continental. And when coconspirators are doing something in furtherance of that conspiracy to get them ahead, bingo, you now find Mr. Robinson guilty.