United States v. Sondra Readshaw ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-1346
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the Northern
    v.                                 * District of Iowa.
    *
    Sondra Readshaw                          *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.            *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 19, 2000
    Filed: August 7, 2000
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Sondra Readshaw appeals her drug-related sentence. Having carefully
    considered the record, we briefly summarize Readshaw's argument and our reason for
    rejecting it. Readshaw does not dispute that after a co-defendant sold two ounces of
    methamphetamine to an undercover officer, Readshaw offered to make two more
    ounces available to the officer, and he told her he would let her know about other
    interested customers. Based on this factual account, Readshaw contends the quantity
    of methamphetamine she offered should not be used to set her base offense level
    because the undercover officer did not commit to purchase the methamphetamine from
    her. We disagree. Just as the officer was not required to consummate the transaction,
    we do not believe he was required to do more than agree to put Readshaw in touch with
    prospective customers. See United States v. Smiley, 
    997 F.2d 475
    , 482 (8th Cir. 1993)
    (in affirming inclusion of quantity defendant agreed to sell, noting defendant's initiation
    of offer to sell drugs to agent); United States v. Garrido, 
    995 F.2d 808
    , 812 n.3 (8th
    Cir.) ("agent did not need to intend actually to buy the amount suggested" for quantity
    under negotiation to be countable), cert. denied, 
    510 U.S. 926
    (1993). The agents'
    commitment to purchase drugs in the Smiley and Garrido cases is analogous to the
    undercover officer's commitment to tell Readshaw about other interested customers in
    this case; it was not necessary for the officer to intend actually to follow through on his
    commitment. We thus affirm Readshaw's sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-1346

Filed Date: 8/7/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015