United States v. Green, No. 18-3589 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant Green's motion to suppress evidence, and affirmed Defendants Green and Herbert's sentences for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The court held that the district court did not clearly err by finding that the officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle in which Green was riding, because the vehicle was speeding and there were two possible state violations regarding the license plate. Furthermore, the first patdown of Green was justified by reasonable, articulable suspicion and the second frisk was also reasonable in light of the newly discovered firearm. The court also held that the district court did not procedurally err by implying a four-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for the use or possession of a firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a downward variance; the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a three-level upward departure; and the district court adequately explained the basis for its sentencing decision.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Arnold and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The arresting officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle in which defendant was riding based on the officer's credible testimony that he believed the vehicle was speeding and that he had observed two possible Iowa Code violations concerning the vehicle's license plate; the two patdowns of defendant Green were reasonable; the first patdown was justified by a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Green may be armed, dangerous and presently involved in drug transportation; the second frisk took place after officers had discovered a gun in the car, which heightened the risk that the passengers, including defendant, were armed; no error in imposing a four-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2K1.1(b)(6)(B) - see U.S. v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2014); the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a downward variance based on a policy disagreement with application of the four-level enhancement; the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a three-level upward departure based on its belief Herbert's Category VI criminal history score underrepresented the seriousness of his record and risk of recidivism; the court adequately explained the basis for its sentencing decision.
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.