U.S. v. Lincoln
| Decision Date | 05 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-2898.,04-2898. |
| Citation | 413 F.3d 716 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard LINCOLN, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
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.
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.
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Grier
...United States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 706 (6th Cir.2006); United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir.2006). Our Court, along with three others, has prudently not adopted this c......
-
Maldonado v. US
...or considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors committed a plain error of judgment. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005). In determining that a downward variance was not warranted,......
-
U.S. v. Buchanan
...v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1054 (10th Cir.2006); United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.2005). One circuit, without addressing the propriety of a "presumption of reasonableness" in so many words, says that sentenc......
-
Rita v. United States
...Williams, 436 F.3d 706, 708 (C.A.6 2006) (same); United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (C.A.7 2005) (same); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (C.A.8 2005) (same); and United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1053–1054 (C.A.10 2006)(per curiam) (same), with United States v. J......
-
The law of unintended consequences: shockwaves in the lower courts after Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.
...F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006) (same), United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005) (same), and United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005) (same), with United States v. Jiminez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514, 518 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc) (holding sentence within guide......
-
A Gall-ing Approach to Reasonableness Review: the Eighth Circuit's Sentencing Review in United States v. Gall Exemplifies the Agony (and Ecstasy) Facing the Post-booker Federal Judiciary
...States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2005)). 278. Buchanan, 449 F.3d at 735. (Sutton, J., concurring). 279. Id. (Sutton, J., concurring). 280. Id. at 736. (Sutton, J., conc......
-
Negotiating justice: prosecutorial perspectives on federal plea bargaining in the District of Columbia.
...reasonable, to conform with the consensus of the Circuits that have opined on the issue. See, e.g., United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. (68.) The D.C. Circuit has yet to provide much indication of how it will assess the reasonableness of a sentence post-Booker. Other circu......