Logic Pro 9 Serial Number Crack UPD
Click Here >>>>> https://ssurll.com/2tmqJT
Logic Pro 9 Serial Number Crack UPD
Here, one is not surprised that he was apprehended only after his arrest for another drug offense. Moreover, defendant initially denied any knowledge of the cocaine and later, for the first time, admitted that he had the crack. He offers a meritless argument (and denial of his involvement) based upon the proposition that he was merely a courier. There is no evidence to indicate that he was an innocent or unknowing courier. Rather, the evidence establishes that he had direct involvement in the distribution of the cocaine to the member of the conspiracy and his own involvement was not to merely transport the drugs but to distribute them. The Court should not permit him now, when caught, to say that he did not know what the crack was for, thereby avoiding responsibility for that crack.
In his written submissions, Williams asserts that the 2.38 kgs of crack seized from his apartment were not part of the same course of conduct as the offense of conviction; that the incidents were essentially isolated; that the distribution of crack cocaine "doesn't happen every day"; and that there was no "common scheme or plan" such as to constitute relevant conduct. The contention with respect to the extent of the distribution is simply non-existent for in August 1992, there was no shortage of crack dealers in the area. The evidence showed Williams to be in the business of, and involved in, the distribution of at least 27.09 kgs of crack cocaine between July 1992 and December 1993. And the distribution was not a one time, isolated event but one that was ongoing; a series of transactions over a short period of time in which the defendant was directly involved. The fact that Williams was apprehended with 27.09 kgs of crack on only one occasion in this overall course of conduct, the next to the last transaction, does not make the crack relevant conduct. In this Court's view, it is not the quantity of crack that is important, it is the fact that he was involved in it. Moreover, the factors listed in U.S.G. 1B1.3(a) (1) (A), set forth in Application Note 2(i) to that Guideline, focus on the planning and preparation for the offense and not on the event itself. The Court concludes that the crack was relevant conduct in this case and that the base offense level under U. 2D1.1(a) should be 34. 3d9ccd7d82
https://pt.kensoul.tv/group/kensoul-tv-group/discussion/fea78593-85c0-4447-94b4-e12cd1c2c9cd