United States v. Michael Teasley ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 21-2674
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Michael Lindell Teasley
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ___________________________
    No. 21-3033
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Derek Shantell Thompson, also known as Smoke
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ___________________________
    No. 21-3522
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Anthony Levon Robinson, Jr.
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeals from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
    ____________
    Submitted: April 15, 2022
    Filed: June 15, 2022
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    MELLOY, Circuit Judge.
    Michael Teasley, Derek Thompson, and Anthony Robinson, Jr., pleaded guilty
    to offenses arising from a drug distribution conspiracy. Mr. Teasley pleaded guilty
    to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Mr. Thompson pleaded guilty to
    conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Mr. Robinson pleaded guilty to
    possession with intent to distribute cocaine and being an unlawful user of a controlled
    substance in possession of a firearm. The district court1 sentenced each defendant to
    a term of incarceration and each appealed his sentence. Mr. Thompson argues that
    the district court incorrectly calculated the amount of cocaine that was reasonably
    1
    The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
    the Southern District of Iowa.
    -2-
    foreseeable to him. Mr. Teasley and Mr. Robinson argue their sentences are
    substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
    “In reviewing a sentence, we first determine whether the district court
    committed a significant procedural error. Then ‘we review for substantive
    reasonableness.’” United States v. Ross, 
    29 F.4th 1003
    , 1007 (8th Cir. 2022)
    (internal citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Godfrey, 
    863 F.3d 1088
    , 1094
    (8th Cir. 2017)). It is procedural error for the district court to miscalculate the
    Guidelines range. 
    Id.
     We review the reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse of
    discretion. 
    Id.
    We begin with Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson argues that the district court
    procedurally erred because it incorrectly calculated his offense level. He argues that
    the court relied on a drug quantity that was not supported by sufficient evidence. Mr.
    Thompson’s Presentence Investigation Report attributed 4,608.2 kilograms of
    converted drug weight to him. That quantity would result in an offense level of 32.
    U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4). Mr. Thompson argues that only 28 grams of cocaine base
    (99.988 kilograms of converted drug weight) and 113.4 grams of marijuana (0.1134
    kilograms of converted drug weight) should be attributed to him. Mr. Thompson’s
    suggested quantity would result in an offense level of 24. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(8).
    See Thompson Br. at 7.
    The district court did not commit procedural error. Even if the court
    miscalculated Mr. Thompson’s drug quantity, it still correctly calculated the
    Guidelines range. Mr. Thompson’s base offense level was not based on the drug
    quantity. It was based on his status as a career offender. Under the career offender
    guideline, Mr. Thompson had a base offense level of 34. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. He had
    a total offense level of 31, a criminal history category of VI, and a Guidelines range
    of 188 to 235 months. Mr. Thompson does not argue that the district court
    incorrectly calculated the career offender guideline or incorrectly characterized him
    -3-
    as a career offender. Therefore, regardless of the drug quantity, the district court
    correctly calculated Mr. Thompson’s Guidelines range.
    We next review Mr. Teasley’s sentence. Mr. Teasley argues that his sentence
    was substantively unreasonable. Under the Guidelines, Mr. Teasley qualified as a
    career offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Based on his career offender status, the
    district court calculated a total offense level of 29, a criminal history category of VI,
    and a Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months. The district court sentenced Mr.
    Teasley to a below-Guidelines sentence of 132 months. Mr. Teasley argues that this
    sentence was substantively unreasonable because he qualified as a career offender
    based on two prior controlled substance offenses. He does not have any prior
    convictions for crimes of violence. He argues he should have received a sentence
    closer to the Guidelines range that would have applied if the range had been
    calculated based on his drug quantity.
    The district court was not required to adopt Mr. Teasley’s view of the career
    offender guideline. “We have consistently held that, ‘while a district court may
    choose to deviate from the guidelines because of a policy disagreement,’ it is ‘not
    required to do so.’” United States v. Heim, 
    941 F.3d 338
    , 340 (8th Cir. 2019)
    (quoting United States v. Manning, 
    738 F.3d 937
    , 947 (8th Cir. 2014)). The district
    court may, but does not have to, accept the career offender guideline in cases such as
    this. United States v. Rogers, 
    20 F.4th 404
    , 406 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).
    Mr. Teasley’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The district court
    partially accepted Mr. Teasley’s arguments that a sentence based on the career
    offender guideline was greater than necessary. The court imposed a below-
    Guidelines sentence based, in part, on Mr. Teasley’s “lack of criminal history
    involving crimes of violence.” The court declined, however, to vary downward
    further because of the aggravating circumstances, including Mr. Teasley’s prior drug
    offenses, his history of possessing firearms, and his use of a firearm with an extended
    -4-
    magazine near controlled substances. Mr. Teasley’s 132-month sentence was not an
    abuse of discretion. See United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 
    829 F.3d 1027
    , 1030 (8th Cir.
    2016) (“Where a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory
    guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not
    varying downward still further.” (citation omitted)).
    Finally, we review Mr. Robinson’s sentence. Mr. Robinson also argues that
    his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The district court calculated that Mr.
    Robinson had a total offense level of 21, a criminal history category of IV, and a
    Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months. The court sentenced him to a low-end sentence
    of 57 months’ incarceration. Mr. Robinson argues that his sentence was unreasonable
    because the district court failed to consider his role in the conspiracy, his family and
    employment history, and his good behavior while on pretrial release.
    In imposing Mr. Robinson’s sentence, the district court found it significant that
    Mr. Robinson performed well on pretrial release. The court also considered Mr.
    Robinson’s family support, his vocational skills, and his strong work history.
    Although these factors were positive, the district court also considered several
    aggravating factors. The court noted Mr. Robinson’s criminal history, his possession
    of a firearm in proximity to distribution-quantities of cocaine, and his possession of
    a ballistic vest and an extended magazine. The court expressed concern that these
    factors made Mr. Robinson’s offenses particularly dangerous to the community. The
    court did not abuse its discretion in balancing these factors and arriving at a sentence
    of 57 months’ incarceration. See United States v. Brown, 
    992 F.3d 665
    , 673 (8th
    Cir. 2021) (“[Defendant]’s assertion of substantive unreasonableness amounts to
    nothing more than a disagreement with how the district court chose to weigh the
    § 3553(a) factors in fashioning his sentence.”).
    We affirm the judgments of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-2674

Filed Date: 6/15/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/15/2022