United States v. Bernard Gaines; United States v. Jerry Martese Dubose, No. 09-3750 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Defendants, along with twelve other individuals, were indicted for their alleged involvement in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine. At issue was whether the district court properly held that the first defendant was a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy and whether the district court properly denied the second defendant's pretrial motion to suppress recordings of wiretapped telephone conversations that he had with his alleged co-conspirators. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the first defendant was a manager or supervisor of the drug network where the factors supporting enhancement included his manufacture of the drug to be distributed; his distribution of the end product to others, at a price that he set, for redistribution in smaller quantities; and coupled with the nature and broad scope of the illegal activity and the nature of his participation in the crime. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying the pretrial motion to suppress where the affidavit and order were sufficiently particular under the Fourth Amendment when they identified the particular telephone line to be tapped and the particular conversations to be seized.
Court Description: Criminal case - criminal law and sentencing. The district court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(b) for defendant Gaines's management role in the offense; the district court did not err in concluding that wiretap application presented complied with the Fourth Amendment's requirements, and the wiretap information was properly admitted.
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.