United States v. Hull
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14918
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hull pled guilty to Count I (distribution of cocaine base within 1000 feet of a protected location after a prior felony drug offense) and Count II (felon and domestic abuser in possession of a firearm); district court imposed concurrent sentences of 287 months (Count I) and 120 months (Count II).
- Evidence showed gun found in Hull's residence; wife lied to probation officers about gun ownership; wife later lied to grand jury under Hull's direction.
- Hull's home also yielded cocaine residue and a scale; CI drug buy occurred at Hull's home within 1000 feet of a school; Davis testified to drug dealing and gun use.
- Sentencing included base levels (Count I: >50g cocaine base) with enhancements for firearm and leadership role; Count II included K2 enhancements and obstruction; grouped to an offense level of 35.
- Probation-based quantity finding attributed over 50 grams to Hull; district court denied acceptance of responsibility due to obstruction and false statements.
- Judge affirmed the sentence as procedurally proper and substantively reasonable under 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firearm enhancement proper under §2D1.1(b)(1)? | Hull contends no linkage between gun and drug offense. | Government shows not clearly improbable gun tied to drug activity. | Not clearly erroneous; firearm connection supported. |
| Role in drug trafficking as organizer/leader under §3B1.1(c)? | Hull argues no management of others. | Evidence shows wife chauffeuring and Hull directing deals. | Not clearly erroneous; Hull supervised others. |
| Attribution of more than 50g cocaine base? | Quantity overstated; Davis credibility questioned. | Davis's testimony credited; quantity supported. | Not clearly erroneous; quantity supported. |
| Acceptance of responsibility reduction for Count II? | Should receive two-level reduction for acceptance. | Obstruction and false statements negate acceptance. | District court properly denied reduction. |
| Substantive reasonableness of overall sentence? | Sentence too harsh given defendant's history. | Court properly weighed §3553(a) factors. | Not substantively unreasonable; within advisory range. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010) (firearm enhancement connection to drug offense must be shown, not clearly improbable)
- United States v. Freeman, 625 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2010) (quantity finding earned deference; credibility of cooperating witness reinforced by record)
- United States v. Jones, 612 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2010) (clear error standard for acceptance of responsibility under deterrence of obstruction)
- United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir. 2010) (defendant's role in leadership determined by supervisory conduct)
- United States v. Waldner, 580 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2009) (acceptance of responsibility and obstruction guidance)