United States v. Thomas, No. 13-2650 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and sentence for two heroin-related offenses. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the government's motion in limine over his Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) objection allowing witnesses to testify about defendant's alleged track distribution, and denial of defendant's objection to testimony about money laundering under Rule 401; in denying defendant's motion for new counsel where defendant failed to show a justifiable dissatisfaction with counsel at the time of the motion and hearing; in considering defendant's crack-distribution conduct when calculating his advisory guidelines offense level; and in calculating defendant's criminal history score. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence of distribution of crack was properly admitted as intrinsic evidence and admission of the evidence was not prohibited by Rule 404(b); evidence regarding money laundering was properly admitted under Rule 401; district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for appointment of new counsel as the record failed to demonstrate that defendant was justifiably dissatisfied with his attorney; no error in considering defendant's crack distribution activities in setting offense level as it was relevant conduct and the court clearly considered the Guidelines as advisory; Alleyne argument rejected; no error in calculating defendant's criminal history.
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.