United States v. Antonio Taylor, No. 14-2918 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for drug and firearms offenses and there was no error in the instructions given the jury; under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924, consecutive sentences were required for defendant's two firearms offenses; ineffective assistance claims should be brought in a habeas action. [ June 02, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2918 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Antonio M. Taylor lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: May 29, 2015 Filed: June 3, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Antonio Taylor guilty of nine drug and firearm offenses--three counts each of possessing with intent to distribute controlled substances, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, for acts committed on March 7, June 5, and July 2, 2012. The district court1 thereafter sentenced Taylor to concurrent terms of 60 months in prison on the six drug-trafficking and felon-in-possession offenses, and consecutive prison terms of 60 months, 300 months, and 300 months on his three convictions for possessing firearms in furtherance of the drug-trafficking crime offenses, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), for a total of 720 months in prison, to be followed by a total of 5 years of supervised release. Taylor appeals, and has been granted leave to proceed pro se. Having carefully considered the arguments in Taylor’s briefs, we conclude that each of them fails, as explained below. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, resolving any conflicts in the government’s favor, and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, we conclude that the testimony and physical evidence obtained by law enforcement officials who arrested or attempted to arrest Taylor on the dates in question constitute sufficient evidence supporting all of Taylor’s convictions. See United States v. Shaw, 751 F.3d 918, 921–22 (8th Cir. 2014). We also find no abuse of the district court’s discretion with regard to jury instructions, see United States v. Chatmon, 742 F.3d 350, 354 (8th Cir. 2014); no error in the court’s rejection of Taylor’s general challenge to the racial composition of the jury panel as he has presented no evidence of a default in the selection process, see United States v. Jefferson, 725 F.3d 829, 835 (8th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1954 (2014); and no violation of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), or Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), in the imposition of the statutorily required consecutive sentences for second and subsequent section 924(c) convictions, see United States v. Hunter, 770 F.3d 740, 745–46 (8th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 2015 WL 1699131 (U.S. May 18, 2015) (No. 14-9331). In addition, Taylor explicitly waived his right to request a different judge, see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993), and 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- his ineffective-assistance claims are best left for possible proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -3-
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.
