The facts are straightforward (although certain inferences therefrom are disputed). The venue is Portland, Maine. In June of 2007, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) received a tip from a cooperating source (CS-1) that defendantappellant Philjon Eisom was peddling crack cocaine. Under the DEA's direction, CS-1 contacted the appellant on June 14 and purchased 6.5 grams of crack.
Two weeks later, a different informant (CS-2) effected another controlled buy, purchasing 10.8 grams of crack. In the course of this transaction, the appellant told CS-2 that he had more crack for sale and that he had made over $8,000 since setting up shop in Portland.
On July 6, the plot thickened: CS-2 informed DEA agents that he had agreed to buy two more ounces of crack from the appellant. The agents immediately arranged to surveil the site of the planned transaction (near the appellant's home). While in
place, they observed local law enforcement officers arrest the appellant as he left the apartment building in which he lived. A
search of the appellant's residence by the arresting officers, pursuant to a warrant issued by a state court, resulted in the seizure of 60 grams of powdered cocaine, 283.5 grams of crack cocaine, and $11,500 in cash.
As matters turned out, the local authorities had been investigating the appellant's mercantile activities, independent of their federal counterparts. They proceeded to charge the appellant with two counts of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs and one count of aggravated trafficking. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, §§ 1103, 1105. The appellant pleaded guilty in the state court, but sentencing was delayed.
On September 18, 2007, a federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment charging the appellant with distributing, on June 28 of that year, five grams or more of cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The charge arose out of the appellant's sale of 10.8 grams of crack to CS-2.
After some preliminary skirmishing, not material here, the appellant admitted his guilt with respect to the federal charge. The district court directed the probation department to prepare a presentence investigation report (PSI Report).
|Circuit Court Judge(s)|
|Trial Court Judge(s)|
|Appellant Lawyer(s)||Appellant Law Firm(s)|
|Christie M. Charles|
|Appellee Lawyer(s)||Appellee Law Firm(s)|
|Margaret McGaughey||US Attorney|
|Paula Silsby||US Attorney|