United States v. Augustine, 663 F.3d 367

Augustine was convicted by jury of being a prohibited person in possession of firearms and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), (3).
The district court varied downward from the Guidelines range of 46–57 months to 24 months.
Police obtained a search warrant for Augustine and Belt’s trailer after corroborated statements from Tammy Rocha and Hershman about a prior theft and narcotics.
The search recovered five firearms in a locked gun safe, marijuana in the safe, ammunition on the bedroom floor, and drug paraphernalia in the living room; a key to the gun safe was found on a key chain.
Augustine admitted ownership of the marijuana; Belt claimed the gun safe was locked and that Belt kept the safe key; Hershman testified Augustine once had a key to the safe.
Augustine left volatile voicemails with the Sheriff’s Office implying joint ownership of the gun safe; Belt and Augustine’s statements were used at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for the search warrant	Augustine argues lack of probable cause for the warrant.	United States contends the warrant was supported by the totality of circumstances.	Probable cause supported; district court did not err in denial of suppression.
Admission of voice messages under Rule 403	Voice messages were unfairly prejudicial despite probative value.	District court mitigated prejudice by partial admission.	No abuse of discretion; admission proper under Rule 403.
Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession	Evidence shows Augustine had access to gun safe and firearm possession.	Disputed credibility of witnesses; she did not access the gun safe.	A rational juror could find constructive possession; sufficient evidence.
Denial of downward departure for criminal history	District court should have departed downward due to over-represented history.	Court lacked authority to revisit denial of downward departure.	No authority to reconsider; affirmed denial.
Variance to probation	Substantial rehabilitation and mitigating factors warrant probation.	District court properly weighed factors against probation.	Below-Guidelines sentence not substantively unreasonable; within discretion.

United States v. Wells, 223 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2000) (clear-error fact findings; de novo legal review for probable cause)
United States v. Terry, 305 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2002) (probable cause and totality of the circumstances)
United States v. Nguyen, 526 F.3d 1129 (8th Cir. 2008) (totality of the circumstances standard for probable cause)
United States v. Searcy, 181 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 1999) (totality of circumstances in probable cause analysis)
United States v. Tyler, 238 F.3d 1036 (8th Cir. 2001) (corroborating statements; credibility considerations)
Vasquez v. Colores, 648 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2011) (Rule 403; balancing probative value and prejudice)
Wade v. Haynes, 663 F.2d 778 (8th Cir. 1981) (unfair prejudice standard under Rule 403)
United States v. Levine, 477 F.3d 596 (8th Cir. 2007) (deference to trial court on evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Ali, 616 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2010) (jury credibility and weighing evidence; not for this court)
United States v. Devries, 630 F.3d 1130 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for new trial motions)
United States v. Hill, 552 F.3d 686 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of sentence; totality of circumstances)
United States v. Kane, 639 F.3d 1121 (8th Cir. 2011) (substantive reasonableness and weighing decisions)
United States v. Cunningham, 593 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2010) (downward variance considerations)
United States v. Goodyke, 639 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2011) (sufficiency review for judgments of acquittal)