United States v. Richard Lincoln

Court Case Details
Court Case Opinion

413 F.3d 716

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Richard LINCOLN, Appellant.

No. 04-2898.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 11, 2005.

Filed: July 5, 2005.

Mark C. Meyer, argued, Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellant.

Robert Lee Teig, argued, Asst. U.S. Atty., Cedar Rapids, IA, for appellee.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

1

Richard Lincoln appeals his sentence on one count of conspiring to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base (crack cocaine), see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846, and one count of distributing 2.75 grams of crack cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). We affirm.

2

Mr. Lincoln maintains that the district court1 clearly erred in calculating the drug quantity for which it held him accountable for purposes of determining the applicable sentencing range under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The evidence of drug quantity produced at Mr. Lincoln's sentencing hearing included statements by Mr. Lincoln to law enforcement officers about the frequency with which he bought crack cocaine and the usual quantity that he bought. From this information, the district court aggregated Mr. Lincoln's purchases and arrived at an amount exceeding 500 grams of crack. Mr. Lincoln, however, testified at his sentencing hearing that, in his statements to law enforcement officers, he had exaggerated his dealings in crack cocaine in the hope that the officers would select him as an informant rather than arrest him. He further attested that the actual drug quantity for which he was responsible was closer to 50 grams than 500. The district court, which of course observed Mr. Lincoln testify, found that he fabricated his testimony at sentencing to avoid a long sentence, and it accepted instead the drug quantity implied by his earlier statements to law enforcement officers. After a district court assesses a witness's credibility, we rarely cast aspersions on its conclusion given that court's comparative advantage at evaluating credibility. See United States v. Adipietro, 983 F.2d 1468, 1472 (8th Cir.1993). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err here, especially since Mr. Lincoln admitted to making the statements that contradicted his testimony.

3

Mr. Lincoln also asserts that the district court violated his sixth amendment rights by finding facts that increased his sentence. Although the district court sentenced Mr. Lincoln before the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), at his sentencing the court presciently anticipated the advisory-guidelines regime created in that case by treating the guidelines as advisory and taking into account all of the considerations set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court therefore did not violate Mr. Lincoln's sixth amendment rights because it implemented the remedy that the Supreme Court devised in Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 764-65, for the sixth amendment violation that inhered in the mandatory-guidelines system.

4

Finally, Mr. Lincoln asseverates that his sentence of 324 months on the conspiracy count is unreasonably long and should thus be reversed pursuant to Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 765-68. His sentence, however, was within the guidelines range for his offense level of 38 and criminal history category IV, and as a result, we think that it is presumptively reasonable. Cf. United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 985 n. 4 (8th Cir.2005). Nothing in the record suggests that the district court based its sentence on an "improper or irrelevant factor" or neglected "to consider a relevant factor." See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005). Indeed, the district court expressly justified Mr. Lincoln's sentence on grounds contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), methodically examining Mr. Lincoln's sentence in light of each of the considerations listed there. Mr. Lincoln thus failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his sentence.

5

Affirmed.

Notes:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa

Referenced Cases

Citing Cases

Cases Citing This Case (50 of 276)

  1. United States v. David Tabor
  2. United States v. Duane Collins Thundershield
  3. United States v. Pamela Walker
  4. United States v. Charles Barron
  5. United States v. Armando Reyes
  6. United States v. Jeffrey Shafer
  7. United States v. Jeffrey Allen McDonald
  8. United States v. M. Rodriguez-Sanchez
  9. United States v. Jose Lopez-Rodriguez
  10. United States v. Douglas Jose Cadenas
  11. United States v. Steve Willard
  12. United States v. Edward Gallegos
  13. United States v. Laanthony Cletae Cain
  14. United States v. Hernandez
  15. United States v. Charles A. Watson
  16. United States v. Timothy Wilder
  17. United States v. Gabino Nuno-Alvarez
  18. United States v. Plancarte-Vazquez
  19. United States v. Nathaniel Love
  20. United States v. Jeffrey Shafer
  21. United States v. Paul Peter Swehla
  22. United States v. Donovan New
  23. United States v. Jacob George Colbert
  24. United States v. Mark A. Medearis
  25. United States v. Fernando Rios-Serna
  26. United States v. Brian D. Gnavi
  27. United States v. Brian Fay Jeremiah
  28. United States v. Andree Artis
  29. United States v. Gary Davidson
  30. United States v. Gerardo RuizMartinez
  31. United States v. Victor Alvaro-Reyes
  32. United States v. Keithan McCorkle
  33. United States v. James E. Caldwell
  34. United States v. Marcus J. Ware
  35. United States v. Adam Bates
  36. United States v. Sigifredo Ramirez
  37. United States v. Dewayne A. Green
  38. United States v. Barron
  39. United States v. Alfonzo T. Lee
  40. United States v. Pamela J. Walker
  41. United States v. Terrence T. Beal
  42. United States v. John Lozano
  43. United States v. Kevin Leggiton
  44. United States v. Cromwell
  45. United States v. Jodi Enos
  46. United States v. Gregory Willis
  47. United States v. Jason Schmidt
  48. United States v. Fernandez
  49. United States v. Ochoa-Villarruel
  50. United States v. Pearson