United States v. Shakur; United States v. Stockman, No. 11-2767 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseAfter a joint trial, a jury convicted defendant Shakur of various drug offenses and convicted Defendant Stockman of conspiracy to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. On appeal, Shakur argued that the district court erred in denying his mid-trial motion for appointment of new counsel and in allowing him to proceed pro se at sentencing. He further contended in a separate appeal that the court exceeded its authority by entering a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture nearly three months after entering Judgment in his criminal case. Stockman argued insufficient evidence to support his conviction, error in admitting $30,000 cash officers seized from his home, and procedural error in determining drug quantity resulting in an unreasonable sentence. The court held that there could be no criminal forfeiture in this case where the district court was without power to enter the order. Accordingly, the court reversed the forfeiture order and otherwise affirmed the judgments.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. District court carefully inquired why defendant Shakur was dissatisfied with his trial counsel when Shakur made a mid-trial motion to relieve counsel, and the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the request when Shakur could give no good reason for the motion and where granting the motion would have seriously disrupted the orderly completion of the trial; District court did not err in allowing Shakur to proceed pro se at sentencing; the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2)(A) and (B) by not entering a preliminary order of forfeiture prior to judgment, and the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter a preliminary forfeiture order and a final forfeiture order after the entry of judgment; the forfeiture order is reversed and there can be no criminal forfeiture in Shakur's case; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Stockman's conviction for conspiring to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana; no error in admitting evidence officers seized $30,000 from a closet in Stockman's house as this was probative evidence of drug dealing and did not unfairly prejudice Stockman; drug quantity findings are affirmed.
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.