United States v. Durham, No. 15-3206 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appeals her sentence after pleading guilty to a drug distribution conspiracy. Defendant challenges the sentence primarily on the ground that the district court did not explicitly rule on her objection relating to a mitigating role adjustment. The court concluded that the district court did not rule on defendant's role-adjustment objection and thus there was no clear error in its calculation of defendant's sentencing guidelines range based on the denial of a mitigating role adjustment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Ericksen, Author, with Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did rule on defendant's role-adjustment objection and it did not clearly err in calculating her Guidelines range based on the denial of a mitigating role adjustment. 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.