United States v. Morales, No. 15-1630 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed her conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to knowingly distribute a controlled substance and one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; the district court did not plainly err in sua sponte dismissing the superseding indictment where defendant is not guaranteed the right to an indictment including a full and accurate factual account of the alleged crime, and the government did not violate her rights and did not prejudice her by removing the names of her codefendants; the district court did not err in allowing the government to make this statement during closing argument; the district court did not plainly err in making statements about a different criminal matter; the district court did not err in imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1; the sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court considered and discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; and the district court did not err in denying safety-valve relief because defendant failed to show that she truthfully provided all information to the government. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Bye, Author, with Wollman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine; the district court did not plainly err in not striking, sua sponte, a superseding indictment because it eliminated certain other defendants from a count; claim that closing arguments denied defendant a fair trial rejected; challenge to seating the jury because it was too "pro-police" waived as defedant failed to raise any objection to the seating of the jury; the court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice; district court discussed the proper 3553(a) factors and did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence; no error in denying safety-valve relief as defendant failed to show she ever truthfully provided the government all information about the charged offense.
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.