United States v. King, No. 15-3611 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his 180 month sentence and conviction for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The court concluded that petitioner waived any objection to the district court's admission of Attachment B of the cooperation agreement; the district court committed no error in not declaring a mistrial sua sponte, because trial counsel could not have testified that defendant's prior attorney made prior inconsistent statements because trial counsel never confronted the attorney with his prior inconsistent statements; and the court rejected defendant's claim that sufficient evidence exists to support his public-authority defense. Finally, the court rejected defendant's challenges to his sentence, claiming that the district court erred in denying his motion for retesting the purity of the methamphetamine and his motion for reconsideration of the denial of that motion; the district court erred in applying an obstruction-of-justice enhancement; and the district court erred in denying him an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Counsel stated there was no objection to the admission of an exhibit, and any argument regarding its admission was waived; because trial counsel never confronted defendant's prior attorney with his inconsistent statements pursuant to Rule 613(b), trial counsel could not have testified at trial that the attorney had made prior inconsistent statements to her, and, as a result, the district court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial sua sponte based on an an argument that his current attorney had to testify; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal based on his "public-authority" defense; the district court did not err in denying defendant's untimely motions for retesting the methamphetamine seized in the case; no error in imposing an obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on defendant's perjury at trial; no error in denying an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility where defendant went to trial, put the government to its burden of proof and perjured himself at trial.
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.