United States v. Daniel Miller
698 F.3d 699
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Between Oct–Dec 2010, Dorsey made four controlled meth buys from Daniel Miller at the Millers’ home.
- Mr. Miller admitted distributing large quantities of meth from 2004–2010 during a February 2011 interview; Mrs. Miller admitted assisting on several occasions, including three buys.
- Defendants were charged with conspiracy to distribute 500+ grams of meth and aiding/abetting distributions based on Dorsey’s buys.
- Jury found the Millers guilty on all counts; Mrs. Miller was found guilty of conspiracy for at least 50 grams; Mr. Miller received 360 months and Mrs. Miller 188 months.
- On appeal, Mrs. Miller challenges insufficiency of evidence and a two-level crack-house-type enhancement; Mr. Miller challenges pretrial discovery rulings; the court remands Mrs. Miller’s sentencing for resentencing.
- The court affirms the convictions and Mr. Miller’s sentence, but vacates and remands Mrs. Miller’s sentence for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Mrs. Miller's aiding/abetting | Miller lacked intent to aid distribution | Evidence shows she intentionally participated | Sufficient evidence to support aiding/abetting and conspiracy conviction |
| Brady/Rule 16 discovery and witness impeachment | Discovery requests violated Brady constraints | District court acted within discretion; no Brady violation | No Brady violation; district court proper in ordering limited pre-cross-examination disclosures |
| Crack-house sentencing enhancement application | Enhancement supported by maintenance of premises for drug distribution | Evidence insufficient to show maintenance for purpose of distribution | District court properly applied enhancement; affirmed as to Mr. Miller and vacated/remanded for Mrs. Miller due to separate issues |
| How drug quantity and role adjustments affect Mrs. Miller’s guidelines range | Complete conspiracy exposure and quantity supported higher range | Only reasonably foreseeable conduct and minimal role adjustments should apply | Remand for resentencing due to misapplication of quantity and mitigating role adjustments |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ellefson, 419 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2005) (elements of aiding and abetting require participation and intent)
- United States v. Jiminez, 487 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 2007) (intent to join conspiracy required for conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Foxx, 544 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2008) (reasonably foreseeable drug quantities in conspiracy)
- United States v. Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2008) (foreseeability and scope of the defendant's undertaking for relevant conduct)
- United States v. Rogers, 982 F.2d 1241 (8th Cir.) (remand when drug quantities attributed based on conspiracy conviction alone)
- United States v. Krauth, 769 F.2d 473 (8th Cir. 1985) (Brady is a fairness rule, not a discovery rule)