United States v. Smith
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25877
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Smith pled guilty to distributing five or more grams of actual methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(B).
- PSR calculated an advisory range of 135–168 months; the district court imposed the minimum 135 months despite objections.
- Facts include a June 4, 2010 sale of 27.52 grams of meth by Smith to an undercover agent and a June 17 search of Smith’s home revealing meth and paraphernalia.
- Text-message and phone-record communications between Smith and the informant/undercover agent in Sept–Oct 2010 suggested plans to harm or suppress the informant.
- The district court added a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement under § 3C1.1 and denied acceptance of responsibility; Smith was sentenced to 135 months with four years of supervised release.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, examining whether the obstruction enhancement and the denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether obstruction of justice enhancement applies | Smith argues no actual obstruction; only possible intent. | Smith contends statements show no substantial step toward obstruction. | Obstruction enhancement affirmed; substantial-step showing supports intent to obstruct. |
| Whether Smith took a substantial step toward obstructing justice | Smith contends texts were mere talk, not a concrete step. | Court found communications constituted a substantial step toward hindering the informant. | Yes, substantial step established; conduct reasonably indicatory of obstruction. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying the two-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction | Smith argues extraordinary circumstances warranted the reduction despite obstruction. | Honken factors show no extraordinary case; conduct not sufficiently remorseful. | Denial of acceptance of responsibility affirmed; no extraordinary case. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wahlstrom, 588 F.3d 538 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for obstruction and substantial-step analysis; credibility review)
- United States v. Valdez, 146 F.3d 547 (8th Cir. 1998) (preponderance standard for obstruction intent; harm to witness)
- United States v. Adipietro, 983 F.2d 1468 (8th Cir. 1993) (conduct sufficient to show obstruction when undercover setup exists)
- United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 1999) (extraordinary case framework for acceptance of responsibility)
- United States v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of proof for obstruction findings; preponderance)