United States v. Bert Bandstra, 999 F.3d 1099

Bert Bandstra was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to 190 months’ imprisonment after the district court calculated an advisory guideline range of 210–262 months and granted a downward variance.
Investigators executed a January 2019 search warrant at Bandstra’s Dows, Iowa home; the presentence report (unchallenged by Bandstra) stated a loaded firearm was found in his bedroom along with cash, baggies, scales, and other drug-packaging materials.
The district court applied a two-level USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon, finding a temporal and spatial connection between the firearm and the drug trafficking activity.
The court denied a two-level minor-role reduction under USSG §3B1.2(b), concluding Bandstra had multiple interactions with conspirators, received and redistributed methamphetamine, and used his girlfriend to handle payments and debts.
Bandstra argued his 190‑month sentence was unreasonable compared with co-conspirator Amber Bonewitz’s 150‑month term and that he was penalized for going to trial; the court rejected both contentions, noting §3553(a)(6) targets national disparities and that the firearm and differing conduct explained the difference.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentencing rulings and the judgment.

Issue	Bandstra's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the two-level USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) weapon enhancement applies	Gun not shown to be in his bedroom or connected to the conspiracy	PSR (unobjected) found loaded gun in bedroom with drug paraphernalia; spatial/temporal nexus between weapon and trafficking	Enhancement proper; facts from PSR accepted and support connection
Whether Bandstra was entitled to a two-level minor-role reduction under USSG §3B1.2(b)	He distributed less than others, functioned more as a customer, charged in only one count	He actively received and distributed meth, had multiple contacts, and used his girlfriend to handle money/debts	Denial of reduction not clearly erroneous; he was sufficiently involved
Whether sentence was unreasonable due to disparity or trial penalty	Sentence harsher than co-conspirator (150 months); alleged punishment for exercising right to jury trial	§3553(a)(6) addresses national disparities not co-conspirators; differences (weapon possession) justify disparity; courts may deny leniency to those who contest guilt	No unwarranted disparity; no impermissible trial penalty; sentence reasonable

United States v. Newton, 184 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 1999) (weapon enhancement requires temporal and spatial relationship between weapon and drug activity)
United States v. Bledsoe, 445 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2006) (unchallenged PSR facts may be accepted at sentencing)
United States v. Bush, 352 F.3d 1177 (8th Cir. 2003) (minor-role adjustment requires comparison to offense of conviction, not just co‑participants)
United States v. Cubillos, 474 F.3d 1114 (8th Cir. 2007) (distributor not entitled to minor-role reduction simply because upstream distributor is larger)
United States v. Pierre, 870 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2017) (§3553(a)(6) addresses national sentencing disparities, not intra‑conspirator differences)
United States v. Wilcox, 487 F.3d 1163 (8th Cir. 2007) (district courts may grant leniency for acceptance of responsibility and withhold it from defendants who go to trial)
Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212 (1978) (acceptance-of-responsibility leniency is constitutionally permissible)