United States v. Breon Armstrong, No. 22-1252 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
A jury found Defendants guilty of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. In a consolidated appeal, the three raise numerous challenges to the admission of wiretap evidence, the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and their sentences.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. In regards to Defendant’s argument that the district court erred in admitting the wiretap evidence, the court found that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the Government satisfied the necessity requirement. The court reasoned that the affidavits explained in great detail how these conventional methods had failed—and would have likely continued to fail—to reveal the full extent of the organization’s drug-trafficking activities and membership because, among other reasons, Defendant and his associates utilized various and frequently changing residences and vehicles. Further, the orders authorizing the wiretaps expressly required minimization, providing that interception “must immediately terminate when it is determined that the conversation is unrelated to communications subject to interception.”
Moreover, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give the multiple-conspiracies jury instruction. Here, the Government’s evidence at trial overwhelmingly pointed to a single conspiracy with a singular purpose—selling methamphetamine and cocaine—a steady core membership—Defendants, and others—operating primarily in the same territory—Burlington—over several years. Witnesses consistently described a single organization in which Defendant would recruit and oversee multiple underlings. Although one of the defendants may have joined the conspiracy later than other members, and membership in the organization may have fluctuated somewhat over the years, this is not necessarily evidence of separate conspiracies.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Stras, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law and Sentencing. Challenges to admission of wiretap evidence rejected as the government met its burden under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(3)(c) for issuance of the wiretap order and minimized its surveillance as required by Sec. 2518(5); the district court did not err in denying defendants' requests for a multiple-conspiracies instruction; the evidence was sufficient to support defendants Davis's and Armstrong's convictions for conspiracy to distribute drugs; the district court did not err in imposing a Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1) firearm enhancement or a Sec. 3B1.1(a) leadership role enhancement in calculating defendant Page's sentence; the district court's drug amount calculation with respect to defendant Davis is affirmed; the district court did not err in imposing a Sec. 2D1.1(b)(12) stash house enhancement against defendant Davis; no error in denying defendant Davis's request for a Sec. 3B1.2(b) minor-role reduction; defendant Page's below-guidelines range sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
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.