United States v. Michael Abrahamson
2012 WL 2979069
8th Cir.2012Background
- Officers found pseudoephedrine-related items and meth manufacture precursors at Abrahamson's residence on Aug 5, 2010.
- Abrahamson was charged on Dec 1, 2010 with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846.
- He claimed to be an “ultimate user” under 21 U.S.C. § 822(c)(3) and testified he conspired but used meth for medical reasons.
- The district court refused Abrahamson’s proposed ultimate-user jury instruction; the jury convicted him and he was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment based on a prior felony drug conviction.
- On appeal, Abrahamson challenges the Speedy Trial Act ruling, the jury instruction, the sufficiency of the evidence under the ultimate-user defense, and the Sixth Amendment sentencing issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy Trial Act timing | Abrahamson argues the 30-day period begins after indictment (Daly) | Abrahamson contends first appearance before counsel pre-indictment starts the clock | No violation; first appearance after indictment occurred within 30 days. |
| Ultimate-user jury instruction | Abrahamson seeks a jury instruction exempting ultimate users from illegality if facts show injury | Instruction would misstate law because ultimate-user exemption covers possession, not conspiracy | Instruction improper; not error to reject; evidence supports conviction. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence under ultimate-user defense | Abrahamson asserts evidence shows ultimate user status absolves conspiracy to manufacture | Even as ultimate user, conspiracy to manufacture remains unlawful | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction; ultimate-user defense does not negate conspiracy. |
| Sixth Amendment and sentencing based on prior conviction | Applying mandatory minimum using judge-found prior conviction violates Sixth Amendment | No violation; Harris allows judge-found facts for sentencing | Constitutional; Sixth Amendment not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Daly, 716 F.2d 1499 (9th Cir. 1983) (30-day period begins after indictment-related appearance per Daly (distinguished))
- United States v. Rojas-Contreras, 474 U.S. 231 (1985) (trial preparation period begins at first appearance through counsel, not indictment)
- United States v. Santisteban, 501 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2007) (jury instruction standard: timely, supported by evidence, correct law)
- United States v. Espinosa, 585 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 2009) (evidentiary sufficiency standard: reasonable jurors could convict)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (Sixth Amendment permits judge-found facts for enhanced sentences)