United States v. Anthony Harris
908 F.3d 1151
8th Cir.2018Background
- Harris pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin and to being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- PSR attributed 97.32 grams of heroin and 17.5 grams of cocaine base to Harris, yielding a base offense level 24 and guideline range 140–175 months; the court sentenced Harris to 175 months.
- Harris objected to inclusion of cocaine base in drug-quantity calculation and later to a criminal-history point assessed for a 2007 juvenile conviction (age 17) that was more than five years before the instant offense.
- At sentencing the government relied primarily on Detective testimony recounting a confidential source’s report that she bought 0.5 g heroin from Harris ~100 times and saw Harris with an 3.5 g “eight-ball” of crack on five or six unspecified occasions.
- The district court adopted the PSR findings; the Eighth Circuit reviewed the drug-quantity finding for clear error and the juvenile-criminal-history point for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cocaine-base observations are relevant conduct and may be included in drug-quantity calculation | Harris: PSR inclusion of 17.5 g crack is unsupported; no evidence of distribution or meaningful relationship to heroin conspiracy | Government: Confidential-source testimony linking heroin sales and observed crack possession supports inclusion | Court: Clear error to include cocaine-base quantity; government failed to prove a meaningful relationship between discrete crack observations and the heroin distribution course of conduct |
| Whether a juvenile sentence imposed >5 years before the instant offense may be counted under §4A1.1(c) / §4A1.2(d)(2) | Harris: The 2007 juvenile conviction was too remote and should not have been assigned one criminal-history point; subtracting it reduces his CHC from V to IV | Government: Acknowledged scoring error but argued no reasonable probability the error affected the sentence outcome | Court: Plain error occurred; because the record is not dispositive about what the district court would have done, the CHC issue may have affected substantial rights and should be addressed at resentencing |
| Whether the sentencing error requires remand | Harris: Errors warrant resentencing | Government: Sentencing court’s comments suggest the same sentence might have been imposed regardless | Court: Vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing on both issues; no limits on district court’s resentencing authority |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Maggard, 156 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for PSR factual objections)
- United States v. Lawrence, 915 F.2d 402 (8th Cir. 1990) (uncharged drug transactions aggregated when they are similar and contemporaneous)
- United States v. Montoya, 952 F.2d 226 (8th Cir. 1991) (separate drug transactions lacking meaningful relationship may not be aggregated)
- United States v. Spence, 125 F.3d 1192 (8th Cir. 1997) (aggregation upheld where events were close in time and involved distribution quantities of the same drug)
- United States v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 1996) (small crack quantities may not support inference of intent to distribute)
- United States v. White, 969 F.2d 681 (8th Cir. 1992) (possession of modest cocaine amounts insufficient alone to infer distribution)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (incorrect Guidelines range usually shows reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain Guidelines error affecting substantial rights ordinarily warrants relief)