United States v. Joseph Mabery
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15417
8th Cir.2012Background
- Mabery, a felon, was convicted of being in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1) and sentenced to 327 months’ imprisonment.
- Officers True and Cisneros observed Mabery’s Jeep in a apartment-building parking area at about 3 a.m. on April 14, 2010, with Mabery emerging, dropping items, and fleeing.
- Mabery was chased, restrained, and eventually detained; a gun was found on Mabery’s person in the back of a patrol wagon, but the video did not capture the outside-the-wagon discovery.
- The bag Mabery dropped contained 109.95 grams of marijuana; a digital scale and 1.05 grams of methamphetamine were found on Mabery.
- Mabery moved to suppress evidence from the car stop; the magistrate judge recommended denial, which the district court adopted; Mabery was tried and convicted, with sentencing guided by a 34-level offense calculation.
- On appeal Mabery challenged suppression, sufficiency of the evidence, connection of firearm to a controlled-substance offense, and the reasonableness of the sentence; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mabery was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. | Mabery contends the initial stop/spotlighting was an unlawful seizure. | Mabery asserts the stop constituted a seizure that required reasonable suspicion. | No seizure occurred before Mabery dropped contraband and fled. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Mabery of felon in possession. | Evidence shows Mabery possessed a firearm; witnesses corroborate. | Some witnesses did not directly observe the firearm; demeanor and recording argued to undermine credibility. | There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. |
| Whether Mabery possessed the firearm in connection with a controlled-substance offense for Guidelines purposes. | Presence of firearm, drugs, and marijuana shown; supports controlled-substance offense finding. | Lack of direct evidence of distribution/sale by Mabery. | Yes; the facts supported a finding of possession in connection with a controlled-substance offense. |
| Whether the district court committed procedural error in sentencing. | Challenge to guidelines calculation and factor weighing. | Court properly calculated guidelines within range and explained reasoning. | Procedural aspects were sound; no reversible error. |
| Whether Mabery’s sentence was substantively unreasonable. | Significant criminal history and need to protect the public justify high-end sentence. | History largely during adolescence; offense not egregious. | Sentence within Guidelines range; not substantively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barry, 394 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2005) (no seizure where officer approach and shining light did not convey lack of liberty to terminate encounter)
- United States v. Dockter, 58 F.3d 1284 (8th Cir. 1995) (no seizure when police conducted routine encounter without coercive restraint)
- United States v. Gipp, 147 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 1998) (no seizure in welfare-check scenario when officer approached vehicle parked legally)
- United States v. Clutter, 674 F.3d 980 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing suppression denials: de novo with factual findings on clear error)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (defining seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes)