United States v. Jamayal Mannings
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3920
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jamayal Mannings was indicted on drug distribution counts (crack and powder cocaine) covering 2009–2013; he ultimately pleaded guilty to a single conspiracy count (no written plea agreement) and objected to the PSR’s guideline calculations.
- Amended PSR recommended base offense level 36 (drug quantity), a +2 firearms enhancement, and a +3 role-in-offense enhancement; after acceptance-of-responsibility credit his total offense level was 38, with a Guidelines range of 292–365 months.
- At sentencing the government presented testimony from cooperating co-conspirator Andre Turner and ATF SA Dimechi Herring about Mannings’ sales, cooks (converting powder to crack), distribution network, surveillance, undercover buys, and firearms found in a vehicle connected to Mannings.
- Mannings contested (1) the reliability/corroboration of the drug-quantity proof, (2) the §2D1.1(b)(1) two-level firearms enhancement, (3) the §3B1.1(b) three-level manager/supervisor role enhancement, and (4) the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
- The district court credited the government’s witnesses, adopted the PSR’s facts (few factual objections were made), imposed a 292‑month sentence (bottom of the Guidelines range), and Mannings appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mannings) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/corroboration of drug‑quantity proof | Testimony was unreliable and uncorroborated; no recordings, forensics, or trustworthy informants | Co‑conspirator and case agent testimony (plus other informants and surveillance) provided sufficient indicia of reliability | Court: Evidence sufficient; district court’s credibility findings not clearly erroneous; drug quantity upheld |
| Firearms enhancement (§2D1.1(b)(1)) | No firearm found on Mannings at arrest; thus enhancement improper | Possession can be established by testimony linking firearms to Mannings’ vehicle and conduct; ownership/onsite location not required | Court: Enhancement proper; evidence supported that a firearm "was possessed" during the conspiracy |
| Role enhancement (§3B1.1(b)) | Evidence did not show manager/supervisor over five participants | PSR alleged multiple co‑conspirators; testimony showed Mannings procured drugs, directed pickups, fronted/sold to others, and led the local distribution | Court: Enhancement proper; managerial/supervisory role proved and PSR facts accepted absent specific objection |
| Procedural/substantive reasonableness of sentence | District court gave inadequate explanation and ten‑year mandatory minimum would suffice | Court considered §3553(a) factors, continued hearing to review testimony, and imposed a within‑Guidelines sentence | Court: No procedural error (plain‑error review fails) and sentence not substantively unreasonable (within Guidelines presumed reasonable) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gamboa, 701 F.3d 265 (8th Cir.) (government burden for role enhancement and standard of proof)
- United States v. Payton, 636 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir.) (drug‑quantity proof standard at sentencing)
- United States v. Garcia, 774 F.3d 472 (8th Cir.) (uncorroborated hearsay may be considered if reliable)
- United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416 (8th Cir.) (drug quantity may rest on co‑conspirator testimony)
- United States v. Anderson, 618 F.3d 873 (8th Cir.) (§2D1.1(b)(1) does not require firearm to be found on defendant)
- United States v. Valencia, 829 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir.) (liberal construction of "manager/supervisor" for §3B1.1)
- United States v. Humphrey, 753 F.3d 813 (8th Cir.) (unchallenged PSR facts may be accepted at sentencing)
- United States v. Jones, 756 F.3d 1121 (8th Cir.) (district court must show it considered §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.) (within‑Guidelines sentence is generally presumed reasonable)