United States v. Kimani Sterling, 942 F.3d 439

Kimani Sterling pleaded guilty to two counts of cocaine distribution and one count of conspiracy; the PSR documented 21 controlled buys and a November 15, 2015 warrant search.
The PSR’s itemized transactions and plea-fact recitals yielded an uncontested total equal to 168.355 kg marijuana equivalent (USSG base offense level 24).
Paragraph 49 of the PSR attributed at least 400 kg (base offense level 26) to Sterling based on observed “multiple individually wrapped baggies,” seized cash, and co-defendants’ plea stipulations.
Sterling objected to paragraph 49 as speculative and argued co-defendants’ plea stipulations do not establish what was reasonably foreseeable to him; the government offered no additional drug-quantity evidence at sentencing.
The district court adopted the PSR, found base offense level 26, imposed a two-level firearms enhancement, and sentenced Sterling to 125 months’ imprisonment (consecutive to a state sentence).
The Eighth Circuit reversed the level-26 quantity finding for lack of reliable evidence to support the 400–700 kg estimate, remanded for resentencing, but affirmed the two-level firearm enhancement.

Issue	Sterling's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Sterling is responsible for 400–700 kg marijuana equivalent (base offense level 26)	PSR paragraph 49 is speculative; only 168.355 kg is supported by the controlled buys and seizures; co‑defendants’ plea stipulations do not prove what Sterling knew or reasonably foresaw	PSR facts plus co‑defendants’ plea stipulations and the detective’s observations of larger baggies support attributing level‑26 quantities to Sterling	Reversed. Government failed to prove quantity with reliable indicia; remanded for resentencing (base level 26 vacated)
Whether to apply a two‑level USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) firearms enhancement	No evidence firearms were connected to the drug conspiracy or reasonably foreseeable to Sterling; firearms weren’t shown present during controlled buys	PSR plus testimony (co‑defendant Howard and a cellmate) show joint drug activity and that Sterling possessed/used a firearm in connection with the offense	Affirmed. Preponderance satisfied; enhancement properly applied

United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403 (8th Cir. 1998) (courts may make specific numeric quantity determinations based on imprecise evidence)
United States v. Madison, 863 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2017) (upholding guideline quantity findings based on testimonial/proffer evidence)
United States v. Yellow Horse, 774 F.3d 493 (8th Cir. 2014) (co‑conspirator testimony can support quantity attribution)
United States v. Muniz Ochoa, 643 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir. 2011) (firearm enhancement may be based on co‑conspirator’s foreseeable possession in furtherance of conspiracy)
United States v. Delgado‑Paz, 506 F.3d 652 (8th Cir. 2007) (§2D1.1(b)(1) can apply for reasonably foreseeable co‑conspirator firearm possession)
United States v. Lawrence, 915 F.2d 402 (8th Cir. 1990) (probation officer opinion alone is insufficient without reliable indicia of accuracy)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (harmless‑error principles apply to Guidelines miscalculations)