United States v. Fisher, No. 21-2151 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Fisher was charged with conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and two counts of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); 846. The government filed notice that Fisher was subject to an enhanced sentence based on his prior conviction for first-degree burglary under Minnesota law, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A). Fisher pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine but objected to the enhanced sentence and requested sentencing credit for the time he served in tribal jail for a tribal court conviction based on the same conduct.
The district court overruled Fisher’s objection to the sentence enhancement and denied Fisher’s request to credit his time served in tribal jail, reasoning that it did not have the authority to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum. The district court sentenced Fisher to 180 months’ imprisonment, the statutory minimum for a defendant with a “serious violent felony” conviction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. While Minnesota’s statute is broader than the generic definition of burglary, it is divisible; applying the modified categorical approach, Fisher’s conviction for burglary with assault is a “serious violent felony.” Treating discharged and undischarged sentences differently does not violate the Due Process Clause.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Kobes, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in determining defendant's Minnesota conviction for first degree burglary was a serious violent felony under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(1)(A); the Minnesota statute in question - Minn. Stat. section 609.582 - is divisible and paragraph (c)of the statute, the section under which defendant was charged and convicted is burglary with assault and qualifies as a violent felony; the district court did not clearly err in determining it did not have authority to credit defendant with time served in tribal jail; argument that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3584 is unconstitutional because it treats discharged and undischarged sentences differently is rejected. [ February 17, 2022 ]
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.