United States v. Kinzey Shaw
965 F.3d 921
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background
- Shaw sold a nasal-spray solution containing cyclopropyl fentanyl to residents of a North Dakota halfway house; one seized bottle contained 11.69 grams of solution.
- Otremba testified he received sprays and bottles from Shaw and Basic, overheard conversations between them about selling the spray, and helped transfer and pay for product (including payments to Shaw’s PayPal).
- Surveillance and a traffic stop yielded another nasal-spray bottle that tested positive for cyclopropyl fentanyl; Shaw and Basic were arrested and tried together.
- Shaw, while in a holding cell after the seizure, told two witnesses (Iron Shield and Red Shirt) “not to tell on her.”
- The district court attributed a total of 77 grams of fentanyl analogue to the defendants for sentencing, applied a two-level obstruction enhancement to Shaw, and sentenced Shaw to 132 months and Basic to 120 months.
- On appeal: Basic challenged the sufficiency of evidence for the conspiracy conviction and the 77-gram drug-quantity finding; Shaw challenged the drug-quantity finding and the obstruction-of-justice enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Basic’s conspiracy conviction | Government: circumstantial evidence (conversations, joint distributions, directions to Otremba) proves conspiracy | Basic: evidence showed only buyer-seller dealings, not a conspiracy | Court: Affirmed — reasonable inferences from testimony supported conspiracy conviction |
| Attribution of Iron Shield sales to Basic (foreseeability / scope) | Government: Basic heard Shaw say she needed to “make money,” so Shaw’s sales to others were foreseeable and within scope | Basic: sales to Iron Shield were unknown to him and not foreseeable or in furtherance of any conspiracy he joined | Court: Affirmed — preponderance supports attribution; reasonably foreseeable conduct included Shaw’s additional sales |
| Drug-quantity determination (77 grams approximation) | Government: trial testimony about multiple spray bottles, refills, a water bottle with liquid, and repeated sprays justified approximating multiple 11.69 g bottle-equivalents | Defendants: seized amount (11.69 g) insufficient to support 77 g; approximation was speculative | Court: Affirmed — district court may approximate quantity from imprecise evidence; 77 g was a reasonable estimate |
| Obstruction-of-justice enhancement for Shaw (+2) | Government: Shaw told witnesses not to tell, unlawfully influencing witnesses and obstructing investigation | Shaw: statement was ambiguous or insufficient to prove willful obstruction | Court: Affirmed — testimony supported by-preponderance finding that Shaw willfully attempted to obstruct; enhancement properly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Blaylock, 421 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Hickman, 764 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2014) (sufficiency-of-evidence principles)
- United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416 (8th Cir. 2012) (drug-quantity approximation and conspiracy proof principles)
- United States v. Jimenez-Villasenor, 270 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2001) (agreement may be proven circumstantially)
- United States v. Conway, 754 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 2014) (buyer-seller relationship alone insufficient to prove broader conspiracy)
- United States v. Cooke, 853 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2017) (circumstantial evidence can establish conspiracy via communications and payment patterns)
- United States v. Alexander, 408 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (attribution requires conduct be in furtherance of conspiracy and known or reasonably foreseeable)
- United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403 (8th Cir. 1998) (sentencing court may make numeric drug-quantity determinations from imprecise evidence)
- United States v. Quintana, 340 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2003) (drug-quantity findings overturned only when record definitively shows error)
- United States v. Robertson, 883 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2018) (district court given wide discretion to approximate quantity when not all drugs seized)
- United States v. Yarrington, 634 F.3d 440 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review and burden for obstruction enhancement findings)
- United States v. Sanders, 956 F.3d 534 (8th Cir. 2020) (direct attempts to stifle testimony support obstruction enhancement)