United States v. Preston Baxter, No. 19-2389 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Kelly, Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Under existing circuit precedent, defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance is a controlled substance offense for purposes of Guidelines Sec. 4B1.1(a); as a career offender, defendant was ineligible for a minor role reduction under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.2 - see U.S. v. Beltran, 122 F.3d 1156, 1160 (8th Cir. 1997).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2389 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Preston Baxter Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: April 14, 2020 Filed: July 29, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Preston Baxter, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, appeals his classification as a career offender and the district court’s 1 refusal to give him a minor-role reduction. We affirm. Baxter’s primary argument is that he cannot be a career offender because his “instant offense of conviction”—conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance—is not a “controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). A “controlled substance offense” includes “distribution,” id. § 4B1.2(b), and the commentary makes clear that it covers conspiracies too, id. § 4B1.2, cmt. n.1. We are once again asked to disregard the commentary, and bound by circuit precedent, we once more decline to do so. E.g., United States v. Garcia, 946 F.3d 413, 417 (8th Cir. 2019); United States v. Merritt, 934 F.3d 809, 811 (8th Cir. 2019); United States v. Mendoza-Figueroa, 65 F.3d 691, 693 (8th Cir. 1995) (en banc). As a career offender, Baxter cannot prevail on his argument that he should have received a minor-role adjustment either. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. As we have previously explained, “[t]he offense level reductions . . . for a mitigating role in the offense simply do not apply in the career offender context.” 2 United States v. Beltran, 122 F.3d 1156, 1160 (8th Cir. 1997). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 2 The government failed to raise this point. Even so, there is no doubt that this straightforward rule applies, and “we may affirm on any ground supported by the record.” United States v. Garrido, 995 F.2d 808, 813 (8th Cir. 1993); see Brown v. St. Louis Police Dep’t, 691 F.2d 393, 396–97 (8th Cir. 1982) (discussing our discretion to “affirm on any ground supported by the record even if the issue was not pleaded, tried, or otherwise referred to in the proceedings below”). -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.
