United States v. Nathaniel Burns, 669 F. App'x 337

Nathaniel Burns pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy offense; the district court sentenced him to 240 months (a downward variance from the Guidelines range).
At a two-day sentencing hearing the court considered testimony from law enforcement, confidential informants, and cooperating witnesses about drug quantities, firearm possession, and Burns’s role.
The district court calculated drug quantity by converting supplied amounts into cocaine base and attributed redistributed amounts to Burns.
The court applied enhancements for possession of a firearm, an aggravating role, and committing the offense as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood.
The court denied an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment based on the timing of Burns’s plea, his attempt to withdraw it, and his denial of responsibility.
Burns filed pro se challenges: alleged improper judicial participation in plea negotiations; sought to withdraw his plea; and invoked Johnson v. United States as to the firearm enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Burns)	Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court)	Held
Drug-quantity calculation	Court overstated quantity attributed to Burns	Testimony reliably supported conservative quantity finding based on supplier-conversion and redistribution	Affirmed — district court’s finding upheld under de novo review of Guidelines and clear-error review of facts
Firearm enhancement	Johnson renders firearm enhancement invalid	Enhancement supported by credible witness testimony; Johnson inapplicable	Affirmed — enhancement sustained; Johnson does not apply
Role and livelihood enhancements	Enhancements improperly applied	Witness testimony supported aggravating role and livelihood-pattern enhancements	Affirmed — enhancements supported by record
Acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment	Should have received adjustment	Plea timing, attempt to withdraw, and denial of conduct justified denial	Affirmed — denial of adjustment appropriate
Motion to withdraw guilty plea	Plea should be withdrawn due to misgivings and counsel’s failure	District court held a hearing and found no basis to permit withdrawal	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in denial
Alleged judicial participation in plea negotiations	Judge improperly participated	Record contains no support for the allegation	Affirmed — no improper participation found

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements for counsel’s withdrawal when appellate claims are frivolous)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (court must independently review record when counsel seeks to withdraw)
United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Guidelines determinations)
United States v. Young, 689 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2012) (drug-quantity attribution principles)
United States v. Savage, 414 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2005) (dangerous-weapon/firearm enhancement discussion)
United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2009) (aggravating-role enhancement discussion)
United States v. Morris, 791 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2015) (pattern-of-criminal-conduct-as-livelihood assessment)
United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2014) (factors relevant to acceptance-of-responsibility adjustments)
United States v. Alvarado, 615 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2010) (standards for withdrawing a guilty plea)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held inapplicable to firearm enhancement in this case)