United States v. Lloyd Koger, No. 19-3227 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Arnold and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in finding defendant's prior controlled substances were qualifying career offender offenses - see U.S. v. Jones, 882 F.3d 1169, 1171 (8th Cir. 2018); the finding that defendant is a career offender controls his Guidelines range and makes his drug quantity calculation and enhancement arguments moot; defendant's within-guidelines sentence was not an abuse of discretion and was reasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3227 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Lloyd Koger lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: June 15, 2020 Filed: July 27, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After Lloyd Koger pleaded guilty to distributing heroin following a felony drug conviction, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 851, the district court1 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. determined that he was a career offender because of his two convictions for controlled substance offenses under Ill. Comp. Stat. 570/401. See USSG § 4B1.1. Koger contends that those convictions do not qualify as career-offender predicates, but, as he concedes, United States v. Jones, 882 F.3d 1169, 1171 (8th Cir. 2018), which involves this very same statute, is directly on point and forecloses his argument. Koger also maintains that the district court erred in calculating the relevant drug quantity and in applying an enhancement for reckless endangerment. But our determination that he is a career offender controls his Guidelines range and renders these contentions moot. See USSG § 4B1.1(b). The district court concluded that Koger's Guidelines range was 188–235 months' imprisonment, a holding Koger does not challenge. Koger moved the district court to vary downward from this range because the convictions that served as predicates to his career-offender status occurred so long ago that they almost don't count as predicates. He also pointed out that his criminal behavior began when he was nine years old, near the time his father left his family. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Koger to 200 months' imprisonment. In doing so, the court noted that, though Koger's father's departure from the family was a mitigating circumstance and the age of his predicate convictions might also be one, the aggravating circumstances here outweighed the mitigating ones. The court emphasized that Koger had committed crimes continually since he was nine years old and was likely to recidivate. We cannot say that the district court abused its ample discretion in so concluding, and we hold that Koger has failed to rebut the presumption that this Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Hoeffener, 950 F.3d 1037, 1046–47 (8th Cir. 2020). Affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
