United States v. Thomas, No. 13-1945 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. In this case, the oral pronouncement was sufficiently ambiguous that the court was permitted to look to the entire sentencing pronouncement. Looking at the oral pronouncement, the hearing record as a whole, and the written record, it remained unclear as to whether the district court committed procedural error. Accordingly, the court remanded for additional proceedings.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. The oral pronouncement of sentence was ambiguous as to the calculation of the appropriate Guidelines range, and the matter is remanded to permit the district court for clarification.
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.