United States v. Scale, No. 13-1019 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pled guilty to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine, and marijuana, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. On appeal, defendant raised several challenges to his sentence. The court concluded that their was no error, constitutional or otherwise, in the district court calculating the applicable Guidelines range; the district court did not procedurally err in determining the sentence where that court first determined the applicable advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in conjunction with defendant's particular situation, and provided an individual explanation of the sentence; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing defendant within the Guidelines range to serve a total of 120 months in prison on the three drug counts. In regards to the five issues raised by defendant in his pro se brief, the court concluded that challenges to the integrity of the superseding indictment had no merit; the district court properly determined a factual basis for the plea of guilty existed before entry of judgment; the district court did not err in finding the PSR correctly represented defendant's criminal history; the district court did not err in entering the amended judgment to include a forfeiture in the amount found in the duffel bag at issue; and the district court did not plainly err by exceeding the maximum penalty for count three. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal Case - sentencing. District court followed the correct procedure in sentencing by first determining the applicable advisory guidelines range, considering the section 3553(a)factors in conjunction with defendant's situation, and providing an individualized explanation for the sentence. Upon review of arguments raised in defendant's pro se brief, there was a factual basis in support of firearm violation in the superseding indictment, the district court did not plainly err in determining there was a factual basis for the plea, the criminal history was properly calculated, the district court did not erred in amending the judgment to include an order of forfeiture, and any error in sentencing for one of the marijuana counts was harmless error.
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.