United States v. Derek Hughes-Doby
711 F. App'x 358
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Derek Hughes-Doby pleaded guilty to two counts of being an unlawful drug user in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)).
- At a firing range Hughes-Doby handed a firearm to Treundes Howell, whom he knew to be a convicted felon; the transfer was temporary.
- The district court applied a four-level enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using/possessing a firearm in connection with another felony, over Hughes-Doby's objection.
- The government declined to file a § 5K1.1 motion for substantial assistance after Hughes-Doby testified at a co-defendant’s sentencing; he argued the refusal breached his cooperation agreement.
- The district court imposed a 57-month prison sentence (three years supervised release); it stated it would impose the same sentence even if the § 2K2.1 enhancement were not applied.
- Hughes-Doby appealed both the application of the enhancement (and the reasonableness of the alternative sentence) and the government’s refusal to move for a § 5K1.1 reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement for transfer to a felon | Hughes-Doby: temporary handoff is not a "disposal" or use in connection with another felony | Government/District Court: transfer to known felon violated § 922(d) and supports enhancement | Court avoided deciding "disposal" issue because district court said it would impose same sentence without enhancement; affirmed judgment |
| Reasonableness of alternative (variant) sentence | Hughes-Doby: alternative sentence unreasonable; treated temporary transfer like a sale; relied on conduct not qualifying for enhancement | Court: district court properly considered offense conduct and criminal history when imposing variant; aiming to justify sentence if guideline computation was wrong | Variant sentence affirmed as substantively reasonable |
| Use of drug-sale admissions given cooperation agreement | Hughes-Doby: agreement precluded using certain information to determine guideline range | Government: agreement only precluded using specified-date information for guidelines; district court used drug sales only to support variant sentence | Court: Hughes-Doby didn't show the drug information was covered by the agreement or that government learned it improperly; district court did not use those admissions to set the guideline range |
| Refusal to file § 5K1.1 motion for substantial assistance | Hughes-Doby: government abused discretion in declining to file motion after his testimony | Government: cooperation agreement vested sole, broad discretion in government; refusal reviewable only for improper motive, which Hughes-Doby failed to show | Court: no threshold showing of improper motive or substantial assistance; refusal not reviewable on this record; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stegmeier, 701 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2012) (transfer to a felon can support related firearm offense analysis)
- United States v. McGrew, 846 F.3d 277 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for guideline application is de novo)
- United States v. Espinoza, 831 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 2016) (district court may impose an alternative sentence it would have given even without a guidelines enhancement)
- United States v. Fairchild, 819 F.3d 399 (8th Cir. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Schmidt, 571 F.3d 743 (8th Cir. 2009) (placing a gun with an untrustworthy possessor creates the risk the felon possession ban aims to prevent)
- United States v. Smith, 574 F.3d 521 (8th Cir. 2009) (government's refusal to file a § 5K1.1 motion is reviewable only upon a substantial showing of improper motive)