United States v. McHenry, No. 16-1266 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking a minor and was sentenced to 293 months in prison. In this case, the court found that officers had a good faith belief that exigent circumstances justified the request that T-Mobile disclose subscriber information and conduct exigent GPS tracking of a cell phone number. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw and request for reconsideration without a hearing. The district court expressly found at the change-of-plea hearing and in denying the motion to withdraw that defendant entered a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea. The court concluded that the district court did not err by imposing an enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice, and in denying a reduction under USSG 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction, and affirmed the sentence because it was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Smith and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Officers investigating sex trafficking of a minor had a good faith belief that exigent circumstances justified a request to the phone carrier to disclose subscriber information and to conduct GPS tracking of the number, as authorized by the Storage Communications Act; defendant's claim that counsel had failed to prepare him for the change-of-plea hearing was belied by the transcript and the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's claim that this justified withdrawal of his guilty plea; no error in imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 where defendant attempted to contact the victim in order to manipulate and influence her testimony; no error in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under Guidelines Sec. 3E1.1(a) as defendant's attempt to withdraw his plea showed he did not accept responsibility; sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
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.