United States v. Wayman Simms
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20260
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Simms pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute heroin; PSR recommended seven criminal history points totaling category IV.
- District court overruled timely objections, yielding an advisory guideline range of 84–105 months and an 84-month sentence.
- Simms appeals, arguing errors in calculating criminal history points and in denying a downward departure.
- Government proved three-point assessments for two Missouri theft convictions; the district court counted them as separate offenses under § 4A1.2(a)(2) because of an intervening arrest.
- Simms challenges the 2006 petty larceny conviction point, and argues the court should have downwardly departed under § 4A1.3(b); the court otherwise noted it would still impose 84 months even if that point were not counted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two Missouri theft convictions were properly counted separately. | Simms contends no intervening arrest and buiten-15-year window undermine counting. | Government asserts separate offenses with intervening arrest fall within 15-year lookback. | Yes; both theft convictions counted separately and within 15 years. |
| Whether the petty larceny conviction point was properly counted. | Simms argues the conviction is excluded from criminal history. | Government maintains it falls outside the exclusion and was properly counted. | Harmless error; even if miscounted, 84-month sentence remains within range. |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying a downward departure. | Simms argues the court should have departed downward. | Court correctly recognized authority to depart but declined for reasons not constitutionally tainted. | No reversible error; denial of downward departure affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Covington, 133 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 1998) (precedent on proof required for parole-related incarceration in CH calculations)
- United States v. Crippen, 627 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2010) (intervening arrest ends inquiry for CH categorization)
- United States v. Townsend, 408 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2005) (clear-error review for CH determinations)
- United States v. Paden, 330 F.3d 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (factors in determining CH category accuracy)
- United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2005) (harmless error in CH calculation when within-range)
- United States v. Woods, 670 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2012) (harmless-error principle for within-range sentences)
- United States v. Fischer, 551 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2008) (scope of review for reasons to deny downward departure)