United States v. Marcus Derby, No. 18-3570 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Kelly, Melloy, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Sentence. Within Guidelines sentence for supplier of drugs, although less culpable than leaders of drug trafficking organization, was not substantially less culpable that average participants. District court's finding defendant did not qualify for minor role adjustment is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3570 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Marcus Derby lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: September 23, 2019 Filed: November 4, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Marcus Derby received a within-Guidelines-range, 96-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. On appeal, Derby argues that the district court1 erroneously denied him a minor1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. participant adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Derby was a supplier of drugs distributed in the conspiracy. The district court found that, although Derby was less culpable than the two leaders of the drug trafficking organization, he was not substantially less culpable than the average participants, many of whom were streetlevel dealers. At sentencing, the district court commented that it may have never heard argument for a minor-role adjustment made for an upstream supplier. Regardless, we agree with the district court’s finding that Derby cannot qualify for a minor role adjustment given the facts of this case, see United States v. Cubillos, 474 F.3d 1114, 1120 (8th Cir. 2007); United States v. Thompson, 60 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 1995), and we find no clear error in the district court’s ruling, United States v. Brown, 929 F.3d 1030, 1041 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
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.
