United States v. Nicole Walker
688 F.3d 416
8th Cir.2012Background
- Walker and Hyde pled guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1).
- PSRs attributed 1,222.9 g of methamphetamine mixture, 3 g actual methamphetamine, and 1,087.6 g ice, totaling 24,257.8 kilograms of marijuana equivalents for each defendant.
- The district court conducted a joint three-day sentencing hearing and considered a total conspiracy quantity far above the defendants’ individual purchases.
- The government argued the conspiracy quantity was 7,938 kilograms of marijuana equivalents, leading to a base offense level of 34.
- The district court found the Arizona source supplied ‘ice’ methamphetamine, concluded Hyde gave false testimony on quantity and Burridge knowledge, and imposed an obstruction enhancement while denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
- Walker was sentenced to 120 months and Hyde to 235 months; both appealed alleging errors in drug quantity calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly determined drug quantity | Walker/Hyde contend the quantity was unreliable/broader than applicable | Walker/Hyde argue the conspiracy scope and Burridge testimony overstate the amount | The district court’s quantity finding is not clearly erroneous |
| Whether ‘ice’ methamphetamine was properly identified for sentencing | Walker/Hyde challenge the purity/identity of ‘ice’ | Hyde argues lack of purity data invalidates ‘ice’ finding | Court upholds treating Arizona meth as ‘ice’ based on reliable circumstantial evidence |
| Whether obstruction of justice enhancement was properly applied | Hyde challenges the factual basis for lying under oath | Hyde contends no intentional false testimony | District court did not clearly err in applying § 3C1.1 |
| Whether Hyde’s sentence should be reduced for acceptance of responsibility | Prosecution argues obstruction forecloses acceptance reduction | Hyde asserts some acceptance despite obstruction | District court’s denial of acceptance of responsibility is affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 511 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2008) (guidelines quantity review; de novo and substantial evidence standards)
- United States v. Mosby, 177 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 1999) (single conspiracy evidence may tie multiple participants)
- United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579 (8th Cir. 2009) (reliability-standard for sentencing evidence under 6A1.3(a))
- United States v. Payton, 636 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2011) (scope of quantity for multi-substance conspiracy calculations)
- United States v. Houston, 338 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2003) (use of circumstantial evidence to prove drug identity/quantity)
- United States v. Covington, 133 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 1998) (identity of drugs proved by opinion testimony of experienced officer)
- United States v. Fraser, 243 F.3d 473 (8th Cir. 2001) (personal-use quantities relevant to total quantity)
- United States v. Cockerill, 2000 WL 852608 (4th Cir. 2000) (non-seized quantities and purity can support drug quantity)
- United States v. Hyatt, 207 F.3d 1036 (8th Cir. 2000) (co-conspirators’ belief on drug identity as support for quantity)
- United States v. Brown, 156 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 1998) (marketplace evidence supporting drug identity/purity findings)