Atoris Slater was arrested following a high-speed police chase in Rock Island, Illinois, where officers found a loaded handgun, marijuana, and various cannabis edibles in his minivan. During transport to jail, Slater attempted to discard a bag of crack cocaine. He was indicted on three counts: possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm as a felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Slater pleaded guilty to all counts without a plea agreement, though the parties agreed his plea to the drug count related only to the crack cocaine, with the marijuana and edibles treated as relevant conduct. The initial presentence report calculated the sentencing range using a 1:1 conversion ratio for the marijuana and edibles. However, shortly before sentencing, the government learned that some edibles tested positive for THC, which triggers a much higher 1:167 conversion ratio under the Sentencing Guidelines. The government moved to amend the report, and the district court granted the motion, leading to a revised sentencing range that was nearly four times higher than the original.
The Seventh Circuit addressed two primary arguments raised by Slater. First, regarding the procedural issue, the court analyzed whether the district court erred in entertaining the government's late objection to the presentence report. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, parties must object within 14 days of receiving the report, but a judge may allow a new objection for good cause. The court found that the district judge reasonably exercised her discretion, noting her ultimate responsibility to ensure the correct Guidelines range was calculated. The court emphasized that while the deadline is strict, the concept of good cause is flexible and fact-specific. Second, on the merits of the drug conversion ratio, Slater argued that the 1:167 ratio should not apply to the edibles because they were not pure THC. The court rejected this argument, noting that Slater had raised it for the first time on appeal. At the sentencing hearing, Slater withdrew his objections and expressly agreed that the revised presentence report accurately calculated the range. The court characterized this as a textbook waiver of the argument. Even if the argument was merely forfeited rather than waived, the court held that Slater could not meet the burden for plain-error review, as his proposed interpretation of the conversion ratios was novel and not embraced by the Seventh Circuit or any sister circuit.
The decision affirms the 120-month prison sentence imposed on Slater, including the mandatory consecutive term for the firearm count. It reinforces the principle that district courts have broad discretion to correct sentencing guideline errors even after the standard objection period has expired, provided there is a valid reason. Additionally, it establishes that defendants must raise objections to drug conversion ratios at the sentencing hearing to preserve them for appeal, as agreeing to a revised calculation constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge it later.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download