United States v. John Starks, Sr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4298
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- John Starks Sr. pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine near a school (21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 860(a)) after an attempted meth lab in his apartment caused a fire and roof collapse.
- The probation officer recommended a 3-level Sentencing Guidelines role enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(b) for being a manager/supervisor of criminal activity involving at least five participants.
- The presentence report listed participants including Starks, his son (John Starks Jr.), Tyler Cue (son’s friend), Patricia Starks (wife), Casey Duhme (assistant), and Elly Kohl (supplier); Starks objected to inclusion of Cue and Kohl and later challenged Patricia’s status on appeal.
- At sentencing Duhme testified Kohl supplied pseudoephedrine on multiple occasions, knew what to buy from past meth activity, and helped cut his hair after the fire to conceal involvement; the court found Kohl a participant.
- The court also found Patricia a participant based on unobjected PSR statements that she purchased pseudoephedrine for Starks, her history of meth use, presence during manufacture, a mason jar of meth/camping fuel in the bedroom, and failure to alert authorities after the fire.
- District court applied the § 3B1.1(b) three-level enhancement and imposed a 192-month sentence; on appeal Starks raised only the challenge to the five-participant finding (not the managerial finding or substantive reasonableness).
Issues
| Issue | Starks' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the criminal activity involved at least five participants for USSG § 3B1.1(b) | Kohl and Patricia should not be counted as participants (Kohl lacked requisite knowledge; Patricia was unwitting) | Sufficient evidence showed Kohl and Patricia knowingly aided the enterprise; five participants existed | Affirmed: court did not clearly or plainly err in finding ≥5 participants; enhancement proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 109 F.3d 1313 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review for § 3B1.1 participant-counting is clear error)
- United States v. Vasquez-Rubio, 296 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2002) (preponderance standard for sentencing findings)
- United States v. Rosnow, 9 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 1993) (definition of "offense" includes relevant conduct shaping the underlying scheme)
- United States v. Garcia, 703 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2013) (ongoing supplier relationship can establish participant status under § 3B1.1)
- United States v. Braun, 60 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 1995) (participant need only give knowing aid to some part of the enterprise)
- United States v. Davidson, 195 F.3d 402 (8th Cir. 1999) (prior possession/use of meth can be probative of knowledge in conspiracy)
- United States v. Bewig, 354 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2003) (pseudoephedrine has limited lawful uses; purchase context can imply illegal purpose)
- United States v. Mentzos, 462 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2006) (unwitting participants do not qualify for § 3B1.1 enhancements)