United States v. Clyde Lincoln, No. 19-2219 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in determining defendant was a career offender; argument that defendant's Iowa drug convictions were not predicates because Iowa's aiding and abetting statute is broader than the generic definition of aiding and abetting has been rejected by this court- see U.S. v. Boleyn, 929 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2019). Argument that Boleyn is wrongly decided and should be be overruled rejected.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2219 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Clyde Allen Lincoln lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: April 13, 2020 Filed: May 14, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Clyde Lincoln pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine near a protected location in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 860(a). The district court1 determined Lincoln was a career offender and sentenced him to 188 months of imprisonment and 8 years of supervised release, a sentence at the lowest end of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual’s (“Guidelines”) range of 188 to 235 months. Absent the career-offender classification, the recommended Guidelines range would have been 151 to 188 months. On appeal, Lincoln challenges the district court’s career-offender determination. We review that determination de novo. United States v. Quigley, 943 F.3d 390, 393 (8th Cir. 2019). Lincoln qualifies as a career offender if he (1) “was at least eighteen years old at the time [he] committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is . . . a controlled substance offense; and (3) [he] has at least two prior felony convictions of . . . a controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). Citing two prior drug convictions under Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(6), the district court classified Lincoln as a career offender. Lincoln argues these prior convictions are not proper career-offender predicates because “Iowa’s aiding and abetting statute is broader than the generic definition of aiding and abetting.” Recognizing that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Boleyn, Lincoln argues that case was wrongly decided and should be overruled. 929 F.3d 932, 938–40 (8th Cir. 2019). But because “one panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel,” Lincoln seeks relief which we cannot grant. United States v. Boykin, 794 F.3d 939, 948 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Owsley v. Luebbers, 281 F.3d 687, 690 (8th Cir. 2002)). We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -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.
