United States v. Reid, No. 15-1676 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon and sentenced to 96 months in prison on remand. The court concluded that the district court was permitted to consider any relevant evidence that it could have received at defendant’s first sentencing hearing where the court's prior opinion did not address the issues raised on remand or limit the scope of the proceedings; the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement pursuant to USSG 2K2.1 for weapons capable of accepting high capacity magazines; defendant was not entitled to notice of the guideline enhancement in the indictment pursuant to Alleyne v. United States; the district court did not err in applying an adjustment for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1 where defendant willfully testified falsely as to a material matter; the district court properly assessed three criminal history points based on a 1998 conviction; the district court did not commit error under FRCP 32 where the district court did not rely on personal knowledge or other information that was unavailable to defendant before the hearing; and the within-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see United States v. Reid,769 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2014). On remand, the district court did not err in allowing the government to add evidence to the sentencing record, as the court's opinion did not address the issues raised on remand or limit the scope of the proceeding; no error in applying an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(a)(3) regarding weapons capable of accepting high capacity magazines; the enhancement did not have to be pleaded in the indictment under Alleyne; no error in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice based on the court's finding defendant perjured himself; term of imprisonment imposed in 1998 as a consecutive sentence was properly counted for purposes of computing defendant's criminal history; while the judge who sentenced defendant in this matter had been the sentencing judge in one of defendant's state court convictions, the court relied on certified records to resolve a factual matter,rather than any personal knowledge or information not available to defendant and there was no violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32; sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
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.