United States v. Mark Pulsifer, No. 21-1609 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of distributing at least fifty grams of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. Section 841. At sentencing, the district court denied Defendant’s request to be sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines without regard to the statutory minimum penalty of 21 U.S.C. Section 841(b). Defendant relied on 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(f), which allows a court to sentence offenders who meet certain criteria below the otherwise applicable statutory minimum term of imprisonment. Defendant disputed the district court’s ruling, but the Eighth Circuit concluded that he does not qualify for sentencing under Section 3553(f), and therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court.
The court considered whether Congress meant to introduce a new concept of a “prior offense” that accrues criminal history point. The statute requires an evaluation of whether a defendant has a particular prior offense “as determined under the sentencing guidelines.” The court wrote there is no separate determination under the guidelines that would assign criminal history points to a defendant’s prior offense.
Here, it is undisputed that Defendant has a criminal history that meets the criteria in subsections (A) and (B). He has more than four criminal history points and a prior three-point offense. Those circumstances make him ineligible for sentencing under Section 3553(f). That Defendant does not also have a prior two-point violent offense that would meet the condition in subsection (C) is immaterial.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Kelly and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. In interpreting 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(f)(1), the word "and" should be read in its distributive sense, and in order to qualify for safety-valve sentencing a defendant must satisfy all three conditions - he does not have more than four criminal points, he does not have a three-point offense and he does not have a two-point violent offense; if a defendant does not meet all three conditions, then he is not eligible to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines without regard to the statutory minimum for his offense; here, it is undisputed that defendant has more than four points and a three-point offense, and he does not qualify for sentencing under 3553(f); the fact that he does not also have a two-point offense is immaterial.
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.