United States v. Wood, No. 10-3404 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pled guilty to two counts of distributing, and one count of manufacturing, a mixture or substance containing cocaine base ("crack cocaine") and was sentenced to concurrent 121 month terms of imprisonment. At issue was whether the district court erred in denying defendant's motion to continue his sentencing until after the U.S.S.G. were amended to conform with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ("FSA"), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372; in failing to sentence defendant in accordance with the FSA or, alternatively, to vary downward based on the FSA; and in improperly considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to continue where it was within the district court's discretion to deny defendant's request to delay imposing his sentence. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in rejecting defendant's request to vary downward in light of the information presented to the district court through the presentencing report, hearing testimony, and arguments that sufficiently apprised it of the effect of the FSA and the impending Guidelines amendments. The court further held that it was satisfied that the district court duly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors and the parties' respective arguments before sentencing defendant at the bottom of his advisory Guidelines range where the district court's rejection of defendant's crack/powder sentencing disparity argument and its thorough discussion of the other sentencing factors adequately explained his Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences were affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal Case - sentencing. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to continue sentencing until after the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying request for a downward variance based on reliance on misstatements because statements did not materially influence district court's decision. District court did not plainly err in considering sentencing factors or in sentencing at the bottom of advisory Guidelines range.
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.