United States v. Bradley, No. 10-2697 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and distribution of a controlled substance. At issue was whether the district court erred by denying his motion for acquittal on both counts because the government presented insufficient evidence to establish that he joined a drug conspiracy or distributed cocaine. Also at issue was whether the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity attributed to him and should have applied a two-level reduction because he was a minor participant in the conspiracy. The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal where minor inconsistencies in witnesses' testimony did not require acquittal and where it was within the jury's province to resolve such inconsistencies and to accord what weight it desired to the testimony. Accordingly, the court found no basis upon the record to disturb the jury's findings and affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court also affirmed the district court's drug quantity findings because the record failed to convince the court that a mistake was made. The court further held that defendant was an active participant in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine and therefore, the court did not clearly err in determining he was not a minor participant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's rejection of the two-level reduction.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy and distribution of cocaine; court did not err in calculating the drug quantity attributable to defendant; no error in denying defendant's request for a minor-role reduction as the evidence showed defendant was actively and "deeply involved" in the offense and purchased and dealt significant quantities of cocaine.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.