United States v. Wakinyan McArthur, 11 F.4th 655

McArthur, a member of the Native Mob, was convicted by a jury of racketeering conspiracy, firearm conspiracies and counts, and drug distribution offenses; two §924(c) convictions produced long consecutive sentences and earlier appeals.
The Eighth Circuit vacated one §924(c) conviction and the sentence under the sentencing-package doctrine, prompting multiple resentencings and revised PSRs.
At the third resentencing the district court (again) attributed a drug equivalency of 1,000–3,000 kg marijuana to McArthur, applied a stash‑house enhancement (§2D1.1(b)(12)), and applied the criminal‑livelihood enhancement (§2D1.1(b)(14)(E)), producing a 420‑month term.
The district court relied heavily on co‑conspirator testimony (multiple witnesses) describing pooled purchases, repeated trips to buy cocaine, on‑site conversion of cocaine to cocaine base at the “White House,” sales in small quantities, and frequent trafficking‑related activity at that residence.
Additional evidence included recorded admissions by McArthur inviting others to use his residence to process drugs and his own statements and financial data indicating substantial untaxed drug income.
On appeal McArthur argued clear error as to: the drug‑quantity calculation, the stash‑house enhancement, and the criminal‑livelihood enhancement; the district court’s findings were affirmed.

Issue	McArthur's Argument	Government / District Court Argument	Held
Drug‑quantity for Guidelines (1,000–3,000 kg marijuana eq.)	Court erred; little evidence linking McArthur to amounts beyond jury’s minimal findings; most larger transactions were Wuori’s	Court may aggregate reasonably foreseeable conspiracy transactions and rely on co‑conspirator testimony; record supports large quantities and pooling	No clear error — affirmed
Stash‑house enhancement (§2D1.1(b)(12))	McArthur did not “maintain” the White House; Wuori was the primary maintainer and any drug use there was incidental to dwelling use	Enhancement applies if defendant knowingly maintained premises for manufacturing/distribution; living in and controlling access supports maintenance; McArthur’s statements and conduct show he permitted and encouraged processing there	No clear error — affirmed
Criminal‑livelihood enhancement (§2D1.1(b)(14)(E))	Even if a pattern existed, evidence did not show income exceeded threshold or that trafficking was his primary occupation	Guidelines require income > $14,500 in any 12‑month period (based on $7.25/hr) and the record allows reasonable inference of untaxed income far exceeding that amount from cocaine‑base sales	No clear error — affirmed

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (invalidated §924(c)(3)(B) residual clause)
United States v. Sainz Navarrete, 955 F.3d 713 (8th Cir. 2020) (government burden and clear‑error review for drug quantity at sentencing)
United States v. Lewis, 976 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2020) (aggregation of conspiracy drug quantities and foreseeability)
United States v. Plancarte‑Vazquez, 450 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2006) (co‑conspirator testimony can support drug‑quantity findings)
United States v. Janis, 995 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 2021) (district court may rely on trial testimony for drug‑quantity calculation)
United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012) (stash‑house enhancement requires the defendant’s purpose in maintaining premises)
United States v. Anwar, 880 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2018) (stash‑house enhancement applies even where premises had legitimate uses)
United States v. Hawkins, 866 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2017) (permitting reasonable income inferences from drug sales for livelihood enhancement)
United States v. McArthur, 850 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2017) (prior appeal vacating one §924(c) conviction and remanding under the sentencing‑package doctrine)