United States v. Cedric McDonald
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11565
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- On Feb 15, 2014 six firearms and other items were stolen from Leslie Castor’s home; a jug of coins from the home was later redeemed at a Hy‑Vee; video showed McDonald making the deposit.
- A cooperating informant, Ronnie Shivers, arranged recorded calls with McDonald to buy firearms; Shivers and an undercover agent recovered ten guns wrapped in the Castor comforter from a white Mitsubishi.
- Evidence recovered from a search of Doc Shivers’s home and the Mitsubishi connected McDonald to the vehicle (insurance in his name) and to items at the house; some guns were identified as belonging to the Castors.
- McDonald admitted being the person in the Hy‑Vee video but denied involvement in the burglary and denied possessing or handling the firearms; he testified he was set up and only made calls to help friends.
- A jury convicted McDonald of felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and acquitted him on a stolen‑firearm charge; the district court sentenced him to 210 months after applying a two‑level obstruction (perjury) enhancement and denying an acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction.
- On appeal McDonald challenged (1) the §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement for perjury, (2) denial of a §3E1.1 acceptance reduction, and (3) denial of Rule 29 judgment of acquittal and Rule 33 new‑trial motion; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obstruction (perjury) §3C1.1 | McDonald: sentencing court erred applying perjury enhancement for his testimony | Government/District Court: McDonald willfully testified falsely about possession; independent finding of perjury supports enhancement | Enhancement affirmed — district court’s finding not clearly erroneous |
| Acceptance of responsibility §3E1.1 | McDonald: entitled to two‑level reduction | Government: obstruction ordinarily precludes reduction; no extraordinary circumstances here | Denial affirmed — obstruction evidence negates acceptance credit |
| Sufficiency of evidence / Rule 29 | McDonald: insufficient evidence he knowingly possessed firearms; verdict inconsistent with acquittal on stolen‑firearm count | Government: recordings, payments, vehicle insured in McDonald’s name, location info, and recovered guns support constructive possession | Conviction affirmed — evidence sufficient; appellate court will not reweigh credibility |
| New trial (Rule 33) for inconsistent verdicts | McDonald: acquittal on Count II is irreconcilable with conviction on Count I, warrants new trial | Government: inconsistent verdicts alone do not require a new trial when sufficient evidence supports conviction | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; inconsistent verdicts not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (district court must make independent findings to apply perjury enhancement)
- United States v. Brown, 539 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2008) (clear‑error review of obstruction findings)
- United States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2000) (clear‑error review of denial of acceptance reduction)
- United States v. Jones, 612 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2010) (obstruction ordinarily precludes acceptance credit)
- United States v. Garrett, 648 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2011) (constructive possession standard)
- United States v. Evans, 431 F.3d 342 (8th Cir. 2005) (constructive possession: dominion or control over premises or firearm)
- United States v. Hill, 750 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of denial of judgment of acquittal)
- United States v. Opare-Addo, 486 F.3d 414 (8th Cir. 2007) (sufficient‑evidence standard controls inconsistent‑verdict challenges)