United States v. Winfred E. Taylor, No. 06-3345 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Prior state offense for which a defendant received a suspended imposition of sentence is a final conviction for purposes of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 regardless of how state law would classify the conviction and sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-3345 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Winfred Eugene Taylor, Jr., Appellant. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: August 7, 2007 Filed: August 9, 2007 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Winfred Eugene Taylor, Jr., challenges his sentence imposed by the district court upon his guilty plea to a drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. For reversal, he argues that a prior Missouri felony for possession of a controlled substance, for which he received a suspended imposition of sentence and probation, was not a final conviction for purposes of enhancement pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841. We affirm. 1 1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. After careful de novo review of the record, see United States v. Slicer, 361 F.3d 1085, 1086 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review), we find that the facts presented here are similar to those in cases previously decided by us--all of which applied federal law in holding that a prior state offense for which the defendant received a suspended imposition of sentence was a final conviction for purposes of section 841, regardless of how state law would classify the conviction and sentence. See United States v. Davis, 417 F.3d 909, 912-13 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied 546 U.S. 1144 (2006); Slicer, 361 F.3d at 1086-87; United States v. Maxon 339 F.3d 656, 658-59 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Franklin, 250 F.3d 653, 664-65 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Ortega, 150 F.3d 937, 947-49 (8th Cir. 1998). The decision in United States v. Stallings, 301 F.3d 919, 921-22 (8th Cir. 2002), which applied state law to decide the issue, does not dictate a different result here. See Slicer, 361 F.3d at 1086-87 (declining to follow Stallings because facts concerning Slicer s prior Missouri felony drug offense and guilty plea were on all fours with Ortega and Franklin; to extent application of federal law in Ortega and Franklin conflicted with application of state law in Stallings, panel was free to choose which line of cases to follow); Maxon, 339 F.3d at 659 (also noting freedom to choose which line of cases to follow; collecting Fifth, Third, Second Circuit cases holding that federal law controls interpretation of § 841). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
