United States v. Jeffrey Anders ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1130
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jeffrey Christopher Anders
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: January 9, 2023
Filed: February 9, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Anders appeals his sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment, contending
that the district court1 misclassified him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1
and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We affirm.
1
The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.
In April 2021, investigators with the Drug Enforcement Agency arranged for
a confidential source to conduct a controlled buy of 10 pounds of methamphetamine
from Anders. When Anders arrived at the agreed-upon location, investigators
arrested him and seized a handgun and 4.5 kilograms of methamphetamine from his
person. An additional 8.9 kilograms of methamphetamine was later seized during a
consensual search of Anders’s residence.
Anders was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, conspiracy to distribute
controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846,
and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The presentence investigation report designated him
a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior Arizona convictions
for attempted possession of a dangerous drug for sale. Anders objected, arguing that
inchoate offenses are not included within the definition of “controlled substance
offense” under § 4B1.2(b) and therefore do not trigger § 4B1.1’s career-offender
guideline.
At sentencing, Anders conceded that the district court was bound by our
decision in United States v. Mendoza-Figueroa, 65 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 1995) (en
banc), to find that his two Arizona convictions qualified as predicate offenses under
§ 4B1.1. The court then found that Anders qualified as a career offender and
determined that his advisory sentencing guidelines range was 292 to 365 months’
imprisonment on the conspiracy count plus a mandatory consecutive term of 60
months’ imprisonment on the firearm count, for a total range of 352 to 425 months’
imprisonment. Anders urged the court to impose a below-guidelines sentence, citing
as mitigating factors his nonviolent criminal history, acceptance of responsibility,
drug addiction, and traumatic childhood. Ultimately, the court imposed a 240-month
sentence on the conspiracy count (a 52-month downward variance from the bottom
of the guidelines range) and a 60-month sentence on the firearm count, to be served
consecutively, for a total sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment.
-2-
We begin with Anders’s contention that his Arizona convictions are not
“controlled substance offense[s]” because the statutory definition does not include
inchoate offenses. See § 4B1.2(b). As the district court recognized, this argument
is foreclosed by our decision in Mendoza-Figueroa, and we have repeatedly rejected
it. See United States v. Roberts, 975 F.3d 709, 718 (8th Cir. 2020). Anders urges
us to overturn Mendoza-Figueroa, but that is a decision for the en banc court, not
us. See United States v. Escobar, 970 F.3d 1022, 1026 (8th Cir. 2020). The district
court therefore did not err in determining that Anders qualified as career offender
under § 4B1.1.
As for Anders’s substantive-reasonableness argument, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a below-guidelines sentence of
300 months’ imprisonment. See United States v. Anwar, 880 F.3d 958, 973 (8th Cir.
2018). First, we presume that a below-guidelines sentence is not substantively
unreasonable. United States v. Barraza, 982 F.3d 1106, 1116 (8th Cir. 2020).
Further, the record indicates that the district court thoroughly discussed the
applicable sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Although Anders insists
that the district court undervalued mitigating factors such as his drug addiction and
troubled childhood, the court gave these factors significant weight and consequently
imposed a 52-month downward variance. “[I]t is nearly inconceivable that the court
abused its discretion in not varying downward still further.” See Anwar, 880 F.3d at
973. In sum, Anders’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Anders’s sentence.
______________________________
-3-