United States v. Scott
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25031
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Scott pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(B).
- During a December 2008 search of Scott's Springfield, Missouri residence, officers found $448, 30 rounds of ammunition, marijuana, and 21.89 grams of crack-containing mixture.
- Plea agreement included an appeal waiver restricting challenges to the sentence, except for certain sentencing-errors or illegal sentences.
- At sentencing, the district court calculated a total offense level of 23 and criminal history category IV, with a guideline range of 70–87 months and a mandatory minimum of 60 months under § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii).
- Scott moved to continue sentencing pending potential changes from the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009; the motion was denied.
- The court sentenced Scott to 70 months, asserting the sentence was not constrained by the mandatory minimum and addressing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal waiver bars Scott's claims | Scott argues waiver does not bar his challenges to the district court’s discretion and guideline application. | Government contends waiver covers abuse of discretion and misapplication of guidelines; only illegal sentence or excess of max falls outside waiver. | Waiver valid; first two claims dismissed as within waiver. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the continuance | Scott claims the court should have postponed sentencing to await the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act outcome. | Government asserts no abuse; continuance not required given timely plea and sentencing. | Claims dismissed within waiver; no merits addressed on the merits due to waiver. |
| Whether the district court erred by failing to consider crack-powder disparity as a sentencing factor | Scott contends the court could consider crack-powder disparity in determining sentence. | Government maintains discretion to consider factors; waiver precludes on appeal without merits analysis here. | Claims dismissed within waiver; not addressed on the merits. |
| Whether Scott has standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) | Scott argues the mandatory minimum is unconstitutional and seeks relief. | Government argues Scott lacks standing because his sentence was not constrained by the mandatory minimum. | Limited standing; court found Scott lacks standing to challenge the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sisco, 576 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2009) (appeal waiver validity analyzed de novo)
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc dismissal standard for appeals when waiver governs)
- United States v. Gray, 577 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2009) (standing to challenge mandatory minimums requires injury and redressability)
- United States v. Johnson, 376 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2004) (standing required to challenge statute constitutionality)