United States v. Washington, No. 17-2004 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of a school. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and declined to adopt a "gilding exception" to the Speedy Trial Act and, even if it did, dismissal of defendant's claim would be unwarranted; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and ultimately found that defendant's sentence was necessary because of defendant's extremely high risk of recidivism and lack of respect for authority; and the Special Condition 3 of his supervised release, which deals with gang association, was unconstitutionally vague. Therefore, the court vacated the condition and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Melloy, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Speedy Trial Act claim rejected; the "gilding exception" does not apply to the Speedy Trial Act; in any event, a later-indicted charge which contains different elements than the charge in the initial complaint (the case here) is not subject to dismissal under the gilding exception; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable as the district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing and weighing the 3553(a) factors; Special Condition of defendant's supervision dealing with gang contact and association was unconstitutionally vague for three reasons: (1) the term gang is undefined, (2) the term "associate member" lacks specific meaning, and (3)the presumption that defendant's association is for gang purposes if any of the persons he associates with are wearing gang colors violates the Supreme Court's admonition that association should not be read to include incidental contacts; the condition is vacated and the matter is remanded to permit the district court to review the court's directions and refashion a new condition, if appropriate.
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.