United States v. Joseph McDonald, No. 14-3430 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. District court did not err in refusing to give a requested jury instruction on determining drug quantity on defendant's possession with intent to distribute count; sentence was substantively reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3430 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Joseph Tyler McDonald lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge ____________ Submitted: July 7, 2015 Filed: July 22, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After a jury found Joseph McDonald guilty of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), the district court1 sentenced him as a career offender to concurrent terms of 360 months in prison, to be followed by 10 years of supervised release. Following careful review, we reject the arguments raised by both counsel in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and by McDonald in a pro se supplemental brief. The first argument before us is that the district court refused to give a requested jury instruction on determining drug quantity in the possession-with-intent-todistribute offense. This argument fails, because district courts are entitled to broad discretion in formulating jury instructions, see United States v. Robinson, 781 F.3d 453, 462-63 (8th Cir. 2015), and McDonald cannot show that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the court’s refusal to give his requested instruction, see United States v. Gutierrez, 367 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004) (errors regarding jury instructions do not require reversal unless they result in prejudice). Second, we conclude that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Third, we reject the remaining arguments, all raised in the pro se brief, because the arguments either were not raised below, or do not constitute grounds for reversal and do not warrant extended discussion. Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny McDonald’s motion for new counsel, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -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.
