United States v. Roger Bugh
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26047
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Bugh, a felon, was convicted of being a felon in possession based on an undercover gun sale to Nowland, an informant; the sale occurred after a two-week government investigation.”
- Officer Nelson led the operation, used Nowland to find criminals, and recorded conversations that were later partially erased.
- The government conducted multiple controlled purchases culminating in a sting at a gas station where Nowland exchanged money for the gun and three individuals were arrested.
- Nelson testified he erased January 6, 2011, recordings; district court and jury heard conflicting accounts on the deletions.
- Bugh moved for acquittal and for dismissal on grounds of entrapment, outrageous conduct, and destruction of evidence; district court denied.
- At sentencing, the district court found four violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and sentenced Bugh to 188 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment sufficiency to negate guilt | Bugh contends government induced the crime. | Bugh argues he was predisposed; government inducement occurred. | No reversible error; evidence supports non-inducement and predisposition for the jury. |
| Outrageous government conduct | The two-week investigation and use of an informant amount to outrageous conduct. | Conduct not shocking to universal sense of justice; mere aggressiveness. | Not outrageous conduct; due process not implicated. |
| Destruction of audio recordings | Erasure of January 6 recordings violated Brady and due process. | Destruction was negligent, not bad faith; not exculpatory. | No due process violation; negligent destruction insufficient for dismissal. |
| ACCA violent-felonies classification (burglary scope) | Non-residential burglary should not count as a violent felony under ACCA. | Extreme view not consistent with precedent. | Commercial and residential burglaries are within ACCA; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. United States, 551 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2009) (entrapment elements and presumption of jury determinations)
- United States v. Abumayyaleh, 530 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2008) (two elements of entrapment: inducement and predisposition)
- United States v. Loftus, 992 F.2d 793 (8th Cir. 1993) (inducement requires more than mere opportunity)
- United States v. Berg, 178 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 1999) (predisposition analysis for entrapment)
- United States v. King, 351 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2003) (informant-used targeting of defendants; outrageous conduct context)
- United States v. Willoughby, 653 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2011) (ACCA burglary as violent felony)