U.S. v. Auman, 90-5019
| Citation | 920 F.2d 495 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-5019,90-5019 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard Faye AUMAN, Sr., Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Peter C. Mayrand, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.
Paul A. Murphy, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and CAHILL, District Judge. *
Richard Faye Auman, Sr., appeals the 210-month sentence imposed by the District Court 1 upon his plea of guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) (1988). We affirm.
Auman was charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute approximately 15.28 grams of methamphetamine, one count of possession with intent to distribute approximately 211.00 grams of methamphetamine, one count of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851, the government filed notice of its intent to prosecute Auman as a repeat offender.
Auman entered into a plea agreement with the government. The agreement required Auman to plead guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 15.78 grams of methamphetamine in exchange for which the government agreed to withdraw its Section 851 notice and to dismiss the remaining three counts of the indictment. The relevant terms of the agreement follow:
6. The government and the defendant agree that the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed by the Court under this agreement pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is a term of 20 years.
. . . . .
14. This plea agreement presumes that the defendant's criminal history category is VI. In the event the presentence investigation reveals otherwise, the government and the defendant agree that the criminal history shall be adjusted as the Court determines.
15. It is the position of the government that the quantity of drugs approximately 211.00 grams of methamphetamine charged in Count II of the Indictment should be calculated in determining the offense level which would result in a base offense level of 24 and further resulting in a guideline range of 84-105 months with acceptance of responsibility and 100-125 months without. The defendant disagrees.
16. It is the position of the United States that because the defendant is (a) over the age of eighteen at the time of this offense; (b) this offense of conviction is a felony this is a controlled substance offense; and (c) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of a crime of violence and a controlled substance in combination, he is therefore a career offender under section 4B1.1 et seq.
17. It is the position of the defendant that he is not a career offender under section 4B1.1 et. seq.
18. The determination of the applicability of the career offender section 4B1.1 et seq. is left for the determination of the Court.
19. If the Court determines that the defendant is a career criminal within the meaning of section 4B1.1 et. seq. then the applicable offense level is 32, and the defendant's criminal history category is VI and the appropriate guideline range from the sentencing table is 210-262 months.
Plea Agreement And Sentencing Stipulations at 2, 4-5. 2
The Presentence Report computed a total offense level of 22 under the rules of Chapters Two and Three of the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, (Nov. 1989) [hereinafter U.S.S.G.]. The Report, however, recommended sentencing Auman as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 4B1.1 because of his previous criminal history. Under Section 4B1.1, Auman's offense level would increase to 32 and his term of imprisonment would be limited to the maximum term of 240 months authorized by 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(C). 3 Auman objected to the inclusion of both his prior drug conviction and the 211.00 grams of methamphetamine specified in the dismissed count.
At Auman's sentencing, evidence was presented concerning his possession of the methamphetamine charged in the dismissed count. The District Court concluded that it was proper to consider Auman's previous drug conviction and that the government had shown by either clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence that Auman had possessed the 211.00 grams of methamphetamine. Applying the guidelines applicable to career offenders, the court sentenced Auman to 210 months, the minimum term of imprisonment provided by the guidelines.
In his appeal of that sentence, Auman contends that the District Court's consideration of his prior drug conviction violated both 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851 and the plea agreement. This contention is without merit.
As this Court recently explained in United States v. Wallace, 895 F.2d 487 (8th Cir.1990), "Congress enacted section 851(a)(1) and the procedure for filing an information to protect defendants from receiving increased statutory sentences set forth in Part D of the Act resulting from prior, incorrectly charged offenses, ... and to give defendants the opportunity to show that they were not the persons convicted." Wallace, 895 F.2d at 489 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). Section 851's notice procedures do not conflict with U.S.S.G. Sec. 4B1.1, the career offender provision of the federal sentencing guidelines because "Section 851(a)(1), ... is limited to situations in which a convicted defendant's statutory minimum or maximum penalty is enhanced under Part D of Title 21." Wallace, 895 F.2d at 490 (emphasis in original). In "situations in which the defendant is assigned a guideline base offense level and receives an increased sentence, which is within a statutory range[,]" Section 851 has no application. Wallace, 895 F.2d at 490.
Here, as in Wallace, Auman pleaded guilty to a violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841. His statutory maximum penalty under that statut...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Shepard
...notice before the statutory minimum sentence they could receive was enhanced based upon their prior convictions. United States v. Auman, 920 F.2d 495, 497 (8th Cir.1990). Skannell's mandatory minimum sentence of ten years was not enhanced based upon his prior convictions (it was set by the ......
-
U.S. v. Auman
...followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Auman appealed the sentence and this court affirmed. See United States v. Auman, 920 F.2d 495 (8th Cir.1990). In early 1992, Auman moved to modify his sentence and his motion was denied. Auman appeals. We dismiss the appeal for want of Th......
-
Auman v. U.S.
...court's consideration of his 1985 conviction violated both 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851 (1988) and his plea agreement. United States v. Auman, 920 F.2d 495, 497 (8th Cir.1990) (Auman I ). He did not appeal on the grounds raised here. We affirmed. Id. at Auman next moved for an order vacating and reco......
-
U.S. v. Garfinkel, s. 93-3873
...and this argument are mutually exclusive, "he cannot now be heard to complain about his strategic choices." 9 United States v. Auman, 920 F.2d 495, 497 n. 5 (8th Cir.1990). In the alternative, Garfinkel alleges that his signature on the PRF is an ambiguous statement and the government " 'fa......