United States v. Tidwell, No. 15-1161 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 280 grams of crack cocaine and the district court sentenced him to 94 months in prison. The district court subsequently granted defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence because the district court committed procedural sentencing error when it assigned three criminal history points to a 1992 conviction because the conviction fell outside the 15-year limitation period in USSG 4A1.2(e). At the resentencing hearing, the main issue was whether criminal history points should be assessed for this 2013 conviction. The district court concluded that the conviction counted, granted the government’s renewed motions for a substantial assistance reduction, applied the same 30% reduction to the bottom of defendant’s revised guidelines range, and resentenced him to 84 months in prison. The court concluded that, even if defendants 2013 conviction was not a “prior sentence” for purposes of section 4A1.2(a)(1), the district court could “justify an increased sentence by affirmatively identifying relevant conduct or events that occurred subsequent to the original sentencing proceedings.” Here, the conduct underlying the 2013 conviction was not relevant conduct where the 2013 conviction involved different drugs and “a time gap.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. After vacating a sentence in a Section 2255 proceeding, when calculating criminal history points for resentencing, a district court may consider a conviction imposed after the original vacated sentence as a prior sentence under Guidelines Sec. 4A1.2(a)(1); here, the conduct underlying the conviction imposed after the original vacated sentence was not relevant conduct for sentencing purposes as the conduct in the later case involved different drugs and a time gap. Judge Kelly, dissenting.
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.