United States v. Wesley Yellow Horse, Sr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24128
8th Cir.2014Background
- Wesley Yellow Horse was convicted of conspiracy to distribute less than 50 kg of marijuana; jury verdict found under 50 kg, but sentencing relied on higher quantity.
- Evidence showed Yellow Horse bought and resold marijuana from leader Abraham Romero in 2009, repackaging personal-use quantities and occasionally fronting to others; Romero testified to distributing large amounts over the conspiracy.
- Yellow Horse had ongoing ties to other sellers (e.g., Jimmy Bravo, Norton Little Spotted Horse), continued selling after his direct dealings with Romero ended, and witnessed Romero handle large quantities.
- The PSR and government urged accountability for at least 100 kg based on co‑conspirator testimony and a 51‑pound seizure; the district court found by a preponderance that Yellow Horse could have reasonably foreseen ≥100 kg.
- Court applied USSG §2D1.1(c)(7) (base level 26), granted a two‑level minor‑participant reduction, producing an offense level yielding a Guidelines range of 57–71 months; Yellow Horse was sentenced to 57 months (below the 60‑month statutory max for the convicted offense).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court clearly erred in attributing ≥100 kg to Yellow Horse for sentencing | Yellow Horse: only a minor participant; sold small amounts for a short time; lacked knowledge of conspiracy scale; no direct witness tied him to overall quantities | Government/District Court: co‑conspirator testimony, witness observations, and continued association made ≥100 kg reasonably foreseeable | Affirmed: no clear error; preponderance of evidence supported finding that Yellow Horse reasonably could foresee ≥100 kg |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 928 (8th Cir.) (appellate review of quantity determination is for clear error under preponderance standard)
- United States v. Turner, 603 F.3d 468 (8th Cir.) (same standard cited)
- United States v. Webb, 545 F.3d 673 (8th Cir.) (district court may base sentence on quantity greater than jury found if supported by evidence and within statutory max)
- United States v. Whirlwind Soldier, 499 F.3d 862 (8th Cir.) (court may consider all transactions known or reasonably foreseeable to defendant)
- United States v. Plancarte‑Vazquez, 450 F.3d 848 (8th Cir.) (same rule on foreseeability for quantity attribution)
- United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416 (8th Cir.) (amounts from transactions not directly involving defendant may be considered if part of same course of conduct)
- United States v. Sicaros‑Quintero, 557 F.3d 579 (8th Cir.) (court should approximate quantity when seizures do not reflect scale)
- United States v. Atkins, 250 F.3d 1203 (8th Cir.) (co‑conspirator testimony can support sentencing quantity findings)
- United States v. Rodriguez‑Ramos, 663 F.3d 356 (8th Cir.) (withdrawal requires affirmative conduct; mere souring of relations insufficient)
- United States v. Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d 641 (8th Cir.) (describes affirmative acts needed to show withdrawal from conspiracy)
- United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403 (8th Cir.) (numeric quantity may be based on imprecise evidence if record supports decision)
- United States v. Alexander, 408 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir.) (upholding quantity findings within range suggested by evidence)