United States v. Nation, No. 18-2296 (8th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana. The court held that the district court did not erroneously calculate defendant's base offense level where it expressly applied the career offender guidelines in USSG 4B1.1, not the Drug Conversion Tables. The court also held that defendant's below-Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to 188 months in prison.

Court Description: Melloy, Author, with Shepherd and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's offense level was set by the career-offender guidelines in section 4B1.1 and not the Drug Conversion Tables; defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2296 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Kristopher Joseph Nation lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: April 15, 2019 Filed: July 9, 2019 ____________ Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ MELLOY, Circuit Judge. In 2018, Defendant Kristopher Nation pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). See also id. § 841(b)(1) (listing the penalties for such possession). A presentence investigation report identified him as a career offender with a range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”). The district court1 varied downward from that range and sentenced Nation to a term of 188 months. He appeals, arguing that the district court erred in calculating his base offense level and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm. Nation argues that the district court erroneously calculated his base offense level because it utilized the 10-to-1 ratio between actual methamphetamine and methamphetamine mixture employed by the Drug Conversion Tables in the commentary to section 2D1.1 of the Guidelines. We disagree. The district court expressly determined Nation’s base offense level by applying the career-offender guidelines in section 4B1.1, not the Drug Conversion Tables. Nation’s argument, therefore, is misplaced. Cf. United States v. Gray, 577 F.3d 947, 949–50 (8th Cir. 2009) (rejecting a similar argument involving section 2D1.1’s 100-to-1 crack-topowder ratio because the defendant’s “offense level was determined by the careeroffender guideline,” not the crack-cocaine guidelines); United States v. LeGrand, 468 F.3d 1077, 1082 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejecting a challenge to the application of certain guideline enhancements under section 2D1.1 because the district court properly determined that the defendant’s base offense level was determined under the careeroffender guidelines). Nation also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable “because a lesser sentence would have been sufficient punishment under the circumstances.” We have said that “it is nearly inconceivable” that a district court could abuse its discretion by not varying downward further than it already did. United States v. Ali, 799 F.3d 1008, 1033 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Indeed, “a sentence below or within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable on appeal.” United States 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- v. Canania, 532 F.3d 764, 773 (8th Cir. 2008). Seeing nothing in the record to rebut that presumption, we hold that Nation’s sentence is substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -3-

Primary Holding

The district court did not erroneously calculate defendant's base offense level, because it expressly applied the career offender guidelines in USSG 4B1.1, not the Drug Conversion Tables.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.