Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendant

defendantpleagrand jurypiracy

Related Cases

United States v. Hubbell, 667 Fed.Appx. 887 (Mem)

Facts

Beginning around June 2014, Hubbell agreed with Michael Joslin and others to distribute methamphetamine in both Riverside and Iowa City, Iowa. Between August 2014 and December 2014, an undercover officer and a confidential source made multiple controlled purchases of purported or actual methamphetamine from Hubbell. During a transaction in December, law enforcement officers took Hubbell into custody. After officers advised Hubbell of his rights, he admitted to distributing methamphetamine for approximately six months and stated that his main source of supply was Joslin.

A grand jury charged Hubbell with one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Hubbell entered into a plea agreement with the government, and pleaded guilty to that count. Hubbell admitted to obtaining, purchasing, and distributing at least 100 grams of actual methamphetamine. His criminal history included two prior convictions for drug trafficking, as well as convictions for drunk driving, possession of marijuana (thrice), domestic abuse assault, domestic assault causing injury while displaying a dangerous weapon, trespass (twice), and theft.

Issue

Did the district court err in denying a downward adjustment for a mitigating role in the offense and was the sentence substantively unreasonable?

Hubbell first contends that the district court procedurally erred in denying a downward adjustment under the advisory guidelines for a mitigating role in the offense. See USSG § 3B1.2.

Rule

When a defendant is sentenced as a career offender, adjustments for role in the offense under Chapter Three, Part B do not apply.

When a defendant is sentenced as a career offender, adjustments for role in the offense under Chapter Three, Part B do not apply. See USSG § 4B1.1; United States v. Warren, 361 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2004).

Analysis

The court found that the applicability of the downward adjustment for a mitigating role was an academic question since Hubbell was sentenced as a career offender. His offense level was set at 32 by the career-offender guideline, making it unnecessary to address the claim of procedural error. The court also reviewed the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors.

The court found that the applicability of the adjustment is an academic question. Whether or not Hubbell qualified for a mitigating role adjustment, his offense level (before considering acceptance of responsibility) was set at 32 by the career-offender guideline. It is therefore unnecessary to address Hubbell's claim of procedural error.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the sentence was reasonable given the seriousness of Hubbell's offense and his criminal history.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found no error in the district court's sentencing decision.

The court did not abuse its discretion. The court 'has wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Texas v. United States, 50 F.4th 498

People v. DePallo, 96 N.Y.2d 437, 754 N.E.2d 751, 729 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2001 N.Y. Slip Op. 05941

People v. Jackson, 13 Cal.4th 1164, 920 P.2d 1254, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6358, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,429

McLaughlin v. Amirsaleh, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 873, 844 N.E.2d 1105

Olfe v. Gordon, 93 Wis.2d 173, 286 N.W.2d 573