United States v. Oliver, No. 19-2209 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for five counts of drug-trafficking, but reversed his 25 month sentence, remanding for resentencing. The court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was not violated and rejected his claims of error related to the admission of map exhibits, submission of an unadmitted exhibit to the jury, the prosecutor's leading questions to a government witness, and the admission of firearm evidence. The court also held that the government's notice complied with 21 U.S.C. 851. However, because the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's 2006 Illinois conviction qualified as a "serious drug felony," the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence does not apply in his case. Therefore, defendant is entitled to resentencing.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Claims that the cumulative effect of several alleged trial errors - the admission of certain map exhibits, the submission of an unadmitted exhibit to the jury, the prosecutor's leading questions to a government witness and the admission of firearm evidence - deprived defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial on these drug trafficking charges rejected; the government's Section 851 notice gave defendant adequate notice of the government's intent to reply on particular prior convictions and a meaningful opportunity to he heard, and the notice's failure to cite the proper statutory provision did not require a remand for resentencing under this court's precedents; however, the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's 2006 Illinois drug conviction qualified as a serious drug felony for purposes of applying the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence set forth in 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(A); remanded for resentencing based on the existing record.
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.