United States v. Clifton Coleman

── United States v. Clifton Coleman ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-2760 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLIFTON COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:20-cr-00340 — Mary M. Rowland, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED OCTOBER 30, 2025 — DECIDED MAY 26, 2026 ____________________ Before LEE, PRYOR, and KOLAR, Circuit Judges. KOLAR, Circuit Judge. Between 2019 and 2020, Defendant Clifton Coleman participated in a drug trafficking scheme selling fentanyl-laced heroin in two Chicago drug markets. His role in the scheme was twofold: he supplied the product for the operation, and he provided an apartment for his col- laborators to mix and package the product for sale. 2 No. 23-2760 In connection with this scheme, Coleman pled guilty to one count of violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and was sen- tenced to a 150-month term of imprisonment. In reaching this sentence, the district court applied two sentencing enhance- ments. First, the district court determined that Coleman was a leader of the drug scheme, supporting a four-level enhance- ment under United States Sentencing Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3B1.1(a) (“the leadership enhancement”). Second, the court concluded that Coleman had maintained an apartment on the west side of Chicago (“the South Albany property”) for the purpose of distributing drugs, supporting a two-level en- hancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) (“the drug premises enhancement”). Coleman now appeals his sentence, asserting that the dis- trict court applied the two sentencing enhancements in error. On the leadership enhancement, he argues that the govern- ment violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by sup- pressing recordings of statements made by his co-defendants that would have disproved his status as a leader in the drug scheme. On the drug premises enhancement, he argues that the district court’s finding was inconsistent with our recent decisions in United States v. Ford, 22 F.4th 687 (7th Cir. 2022), United States v. Montgomery, 114 F.4th 847 (7th Cir. 2024) (per curiam), and United States v. Craft, 99 F.4th 407 (7th Cir. 2024). We disagree on both fronts. The record shows that the government provided Coleman with transcript summaries of the co-defendants’ statements that provided the information Coleman sought to undermine his leadership role. Thus, Coleman cannot establish Brady’s materiality prong for the purposes of the leadership enhancement. The drug premises enhancement is more difficult: Coleman presents a close case No. 23-2760 3 following our opinions in Ford, Montgomery, and Craft. But the combination of his ownership of the South Albany property, his renting the property with knowledge it would be used as a drug premises, and his level of control over the drug activi- ties taking place there justify the enhancement. We affirm. I. Background A. The Offense We present the facts as admitted in Coleman’s plea agree- ment and unchallenged in the Presentence Report (“PSR”). Coleman’s involvement in the drug trafficking organization (“DTO”) at issue dates back to at least February 2019, the first alleged date of his involvement in supplying products to two open-air drug markets in Chicago. His primary role was to provide heroin to lower-level “managers”: Coleman would make weekly deliveries of heroin to three managers—Rodney Rowsey, Bernard Rowsey, and Tarrence Watson—who would then cut, mix, and package the drugs for distribution. C