United States v. Jamarlo Scales
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23317
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Scales pled guilty to three drug counts under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and one firearm count under § 924(c)(1)(A).
- District court determined an adjusted offense level of 25 and criminal history category VI, then imposed 120-month sentences on the drug counts concurrent, plus 60 months on the firearm count consecutive, within the calculated range.
- Forfeiture was granted preliminarily in 2012; final forfeiture judgments were entered after sentencing, including approximately $76,600.
- Facts at sentencing included a gun and drugs found in an apartment not rented to Scales, Scales’ flight from officers, and a bag containing money and drugs.
- On appeal, Scales challenges aspects of the sentence and forfeiture proceedings, raising multiple pro se and counsel-grounded arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prescribed guidelines procedure followed? | Scales argues the district court failed to independently calculate § 3553(a). | Scales contends the court abdicated independent consideration and relied on the guidelines. | Procedural requirements satisfied; court explained reliance on guidelines and § 3553(a). |
| Validity of § 924(c) count and indictment basis | Scales asserts no factual basis for firearm count due to possession not use. | Evidence supported possession and use in furtherance of drug trafficking. | No plain error; factual basis for the plea established. |
| Amended judgment and forfeiture | District court lacked authority to amend to include forfeiture without sentencing presence. | District court had authority due to preliminary forfeiture order. | Amendment proper; clerical remedy consistent with Rule 32.2 and prior orders. |
| Harmless error on count three maximum penalty | Scales claims count three exceeded statutory maximum. | Sentence still valid as counts run concurrently; error harmless. | Harmless error; does not affect substantial rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural-abuse and reasonableness review of sentences)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (guidelines range considered with § 3553(a))
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (guidelines constitutional under separation of powers)
- Feemster v. United States, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (defining procedural-reasonableness review en banc)
- Deegan v. United States, 605 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 2010) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
- Espinoza Bravo v. United States, 624 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review for unpreserved issues)
- Hatcher v. United States, 323 F.3d 666 (8th Cir. 2003) (clerical-forfeiture-order correction after preliminary order)
- Shakur v. United States, 691 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2012) (forfeiture-notice and procedural points in sentencing)
- Pirani v. United States, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (harmless-error standard for sentencing)