62 F.4th 430
8th Cir.2023Background
- In Feb 2017 police executed a warrant at Soto’s Kansas City residence and found six firearms (including a Smith & Wesson with Soto’s DNA), marijuana residue, and drug paraphernalia; Soto later pleaded guilty to being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)).
- In Dec 2020, after Soto was indicted, officers arrested him at the same residence and, following a warrant search, found dealer quantities of marijuana and cocaine, scales and packaging, large stockpiles of magazines/ammunition, and a loaded 9mm Glock (the Glock handgun).
- The PSR treated the December 2020 conduct as Guidelines “relevant conduct,” raising Soto’s base offense level (semiautomatic capable of large-capacity magazine) and applying a four-level enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with drug trafficking, producing a 70–87 month advisory range.
- Soto objected in writing and at sentencing to possession findings (arguing insufficient evidence he possessed the Glock) and to the drug-dealing enhancement (arguing only personal-use quantities were found in 2017); he did not cite USSG § 1B1.3 or use the term “relevant conduct.”
- The district court overruled Soto’s objections based on agent testimony and PSR evidence of constructive possession and distribution-related evidence, and sentenced him to 72 months.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit held Soto failed to preserve a § 1B1.3 relevant-conduct challenge (so review is for plain error) and found no plain error: the December 2020 facts were sufficiently similar and regular to be part of the same course of conduct as the 2017 offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Soto) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of the § 1B1.3 relevant-conduct challenge | Written objections and PSR response put court on notice that only 2017 facts should govern sentencing | Soto’s objections targeted possession of the Glock, not § 1B1.3; he never used the term or argued relevant conduct at sentencing | Not preserved; appellate review limited to plain-error standard |
| Whether Dec 2020 search is “relevant conduct” (same course of conduct) under USSG § 1B1.3 | Four-year gap precludes grouping; December conduct is remote and not part of same course | Same residence/bedroom, repeated presence of firearms, drugs, ammunition, and distribution paraphernalia show similarity, regularity, and ongoing activity | No plain error: December 2020 conduct was part of same course of conduct and properly considered for Guidelines enhancements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Anderson, 243 F.3d 478 (8th Cir. 2001) (courts should consider similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity for same-course-of-conduct analysis)
- United States v. Lawrence, 915 F.2d 402 (8th Cir. 1990) (relevant-conduct inquiry is fact-intensive; no bright-line temporal rule)
- United States v. Montoya, 952 F.2d 226 (8th Cir. 1991) (district court given broad discretion in assessing relevant conduct)
- United States v. Mahone, 688 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 2012) (similar-conduct analysis informing § 1B1.3 application)
- United States v. Ault, 446 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2006) (preserved Guidelines relevant-conduct findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Williams, 994 F.2d 1287 (8th Cir. 1993) (preservation requires timely objection stating grounds so trial court can correct error)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (preservation principle and plain-error framework)
- United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (four-prong plain-error standard)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (error is plain if clear or obvious)