United States v. Woods, No. 12-3075 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence stemming from his plea of guilty to one count of distribution of 28 grams or more of cocaine base and one count of distribution of marijuana. The court declined to address defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims because he had not shown that the record was sufficiently developed to address his arguments or that a miscarriage of justice would result if the court declined to do so; the district court did not plainly err in failing to grant him "credit" for time spent in state custody under U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b); the court need not decide whether the district court erred in regards to defendant's general procedural sentencing challenges because any error was harmless; and defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where he received the statutory mandatory minimum sentence and the district court was lenient in ordering his federal sentence to run concurrent with the remaining portion of his Nebraska parole revocation sentence under U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Court would not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel concerning credit for state time and transfer to federal custody; Guidelines Sec. 5G1.3(b) did not apply to defendant's sentencing; Guidelines Sec. 5G1.3(c) did apply, and the court followed the provision by ordering defendant's federal sentence to run concurrently with the remaining portion of his state sentence; any procedural error in sentencing was harmless in light of the fact that defendant received the statutory mandatory minimum sentence; sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ June 24, 2013
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.