United States v. Rodney Brown, No. 17-1200 (8th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendant's valid guilty plea waived his claim concerning suppression of evidence; double jeopardy claim rejected as the Minnesota indictment describes on its face a conspiracy separate from the one giving rise to defendant's Florida conspiracy conviction; no error in imposing a vulnerable victim enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3A1.1(b)(1) or a sophisticated means enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C);no error in sentencing defendant on the intended loss in this tax fraud prosecution as Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1 directs the court to consider the greater of the actual loss or the intended loss; claim of sentencing disparities with co-defendants rejected; the statutory directive in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a)(6) to avoid unwarranted disparities refers to national disparities and not differences among co-conspirators; no error in finding that some of defendant's conduct in the Florida case was not relevant conduct to this conspiracy, and the court did not err in making a portion of the sentence consecutive to defendant's time from the Florida sentence. Judge Kelly, concurring. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1200 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Rodney D. Brown, also known as Rod lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: August 30, 2017 Filed: September 1, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Rodney Brown appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Upon careful 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. de novo review, see United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review), we conclude that dismissal was proper because Brown was sentenced based on a binding plea agreement that included a base offense level and drug quantity, but did not include a criminal history level or Guidelines range, and thus was not expressly based on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission, see Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685, 2695-700 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); Long, 757 F.3d at 764. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-

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.