United States v. Jeremy Bayne Lynch , 595 F. App'x 943 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •             Case: 14-10519   Date Filed: 12/29/2014   Page: 1 of 16
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 14-10519
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00154-CG-N-3
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JEREMY BAYNE LYNCH,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Alabama
    ________________________
    (December 29, 2014)
    Before TJOFLAT, HULL and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jeremy Lynch and six others—Disa Rivers, Christopher Barber, Haley
    Jordan, Tessa Rivers, Jamie Holland, and Thomas Turner—were charged in a
    Case: 14-10519     Date Filed: 12/29/2014    Page: 2 of 16
    twenty-count superseding indictment with trafficking methamphetamine. Lynch
    was charged in six counts: Count One, conspiracy to possess with intent to
    distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 946; Counts Five, Six,
    Seven, Nine, and Eleven, possession with intent to distribute the drug, in violation
    of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lynch pled guilty to
    Count One, which carried a statutory penalty of imprisonment for five to forty
    years. The plea agreement contained a waiver, which stated that Lynch
    knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to file any direct appeal
    or any collateral attack, including a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
    sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, [Lynch will] not challenge
    his guilty plea, conviction, or sentence . . . in any district court
    or appellate court proceedings.
    The District Court sentenced Lynch to a prison term of sixty months. He now
    appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm.
    I.
    Lynch seeks the vacation of his conviction on the ground that the District
    Court committed plain error in accepting his guilty plea to Count One because the
    factual basis presented to the court was insufficient to show that he was involved in
    the alleged conspiracy.
    Ordinarily, we review a district court’s determination of whether there is a
    sufficient factual basis to accept a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States
    v. Owen, 
    858 F.2d 1514
    , 1516 (11th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). However, where, as
    2
    Case: 14-10519      Date Filed: 12/29/2014    Page: 3 of 16
    here, a defendant fails to object to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11
    violation in the district court, we review for plain error under Federal Rule of
    Criminal Procedure 52(b). See United States v. Moriarty, 
    429 F.3d 1012
    , 1018–19
    (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
    To obtain a reversal for plain error, a defendant must show that there is (1)
    error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. See United States v.
    Rodriguez, 
    398 F.3d 1291
    , 1298 (11th Cir.2005). “If all three conditions are met,
    an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but
    only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
    judicial proceedings.” 
    Id. (quoting United
    States v. Cotton, 
    535 U.S. 625
    , 631, 
    122 S. Ct. 1781
    , 1785, 
    152 L. Ed. 2d 860
    (2002)).
    As for a Rule 11 violation, “a defendant who seeks reversal of his conviction
    after a guilty plea . . . must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he
    would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 
    542 U.S. 74
    , 83, 
    124 S. Ct. 2333
    , 2340, 
    159 L. Ed. 2d 157
    (2004). To satisfy this standard,
    the defendant need not “prove by a preponderance of the evidence that but for [the]
    error things would have been different.” 
    Id. at 83
    n.9, 124 S. Ct. at 2340 
    n.9.
    Instead, he “must . . . satisfy the judgment of the reviewing court, informed by the
    entire record, that the probability of a different result is sufficient to undermine
    confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.” 
    Id. at 83
    ; 124 S. Ct. at 2340
    3
    Case: 14-10519    Date Filed: 12/29/2014    Page: 4 of 16
    (quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Davila, 
    749 F.3d 982
    , 993–94
    (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).
    Rule 11 requires district courts to “determine that there is a factual basis for
    the plea” before entering judgment on a guilty plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).
    “The standard for evaluating challenges to the factual basis for a guilty plea is
    whether the trial court was presented with evidence from which it could reasonably
    find that the defendant was guilty.” United States v. Lopez, 
    907 F.2d 1096
    , 1100
    (11th Cir. 1990). There is no requirement that there be “uncontroverted evidence”
    of guilt. 
    Owen, 858 F.2d at 1516
    –17. The purpose of the Rule 11 requirement that
    a district court conduct a sufficient inquiry into the factual basis for the plea is “to
    protect a defendant who mistakenly believes that his conduct constitutes the
    criminal offense to which he is pleading.” 
    Lopez, 907 F.2d at 1100
    . We may
    evaluate a defendant’s admissions in a factual summarization if such facts were
    presented by the parties to enable the district court to determine the factual basis
    for a guilty plea. See United States v. Frye, 
    402 F.3d 1123
    , 1128 (11th Cir. 2005)
    (per curiam).
    To support a conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs in violation of 21
    U.S.C. § 846, “the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) a
    conspiracy existed; (2) [the defendant] knew of the essential objectives of the
    conspiracy; and (3) [he] knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy.”
    4
    Case: 14-10519     Date Filed: 12/29/2014   Page: 5 of 16
    United States v. Calderon, 
    127 F.3d 1314
    , 1326 (11th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks
    omitted). In considering the first element, we consider whether a common goal
    existed, the nature of the underlying scheme, and any overlap of the participants.
    See United States v. Brown, 
    587 F.3d 1082
    , 1089 (11th Cir. 2009). To prove the
    third element, knowing and voluntary participation, the government must prove
    beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had the specific intent to join the
    conspiracy. 
    Calderon, 127 F.3d at 1326
    . However, once the government
    establishes the existence of the underlying conspiracy, “it only needs to come
    forward with slight evidence to connect a particular defendant to the conspiracy.”
    
    Id. (quotation marks
    omitted).
    A defendant’s participation in a conspiracy need not be proved by direct
    evidence, and a common purpose and plan with other co-conspirators “may be
    inferred from a development and collocation of circumstances.” United States v.
    Lyons, 
    53 F.3d 1198
    , 1201 (11th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks omitted) (explaining
    that the inference of participation, raised from presence and association with
    conspirators, is a material and probative factor that a jury may properly consider).
    There is a “critical distinction between a conspiratorial agreement and a
    buyer–seller transaction.” United States v. Mercer, 
    165 F.3d 1331
    , 1335 (11th Cir.
    1999) (per curiam). A buyer–seller transaction “is simply not probative of an
    agreement to join together to accomplish a criminal objective beyond that already
    5
    Case: 14-10519     Date Filed: 12/29/2014    Page: 6 of 16
    being accomplished by the transaction.” 
    Id. (quotation marks
    omitted). “The
    essence of a conspiracy,” by contrast, “is an agreement, not the commission of the
    substantive offense.” Id.; see also United States v. Dekle, 
    165 F.3d 826
    , 829 (11th
    Cir. 1999) (“What distinguishes a conspiracy from its substantive predicate offense
    is not just the presence of any agreement, but an agreement with the same joint
    criminal objective—here the joint objective of distributing drugs.”). Regarding
    drug transactions, a conspiratorial agreement “may be inferred when the evidence
    shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs
    to the purchaser.” 
    Mercer, 165 F.3d at 1335
    . Additionally, it is “well-established
    in this Circuit” that “where there are repeated transactions buying and selling large
    quantities of illegal drugs,” there is “sufficient evidence that the participants were
    involved in a conspiracy to distribute those drugs in the market.” 
    Brown, 587 F.3d at 1089
    ; see also United States v. Thompson, 
    422 F.3d 1285
    , 1292 (11th Cir. 2005)
    (stating that an agreement may also “be inferred when the evidence shows a
    continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs”
    between a seller and buyer (quoting United States v. Johnson, 
    889 F.2d 1032
    ,
    1035–36 (11th Cir. 1989))). While “mere presence” during a drug transaction is
    not enough, such presence is “certainly a factor to consider in determining whether
    a defendant joined a conspiracy.” United States v. Charles, 
    313 F.3d 1278
    , 1284
    (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
    6
    Case: 14-10519     Date Filed: 12/29/2014   Page: 7 of 16
    Lynch has not demonstrated that the District Court plainly erred in
    concluding there was a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea, as there was
    ample evidence in the record for the court to reasonably find that he was guilty of
    conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a substance containing
    methamphetamine. First, three of Lynch’s codefendants—Christopher Barber,
    Disa Rivers, and Haley Jordan—are linked together through the statements of an
    unnamed cooperating defendant, as reflected in Lynch’s factual summary. Rivers
    arranged for the cooperating defendant to serve as protection during Barber’s drug
    purchases from suppliers, and Rivers told Barber that she had some guns to sell,
    sold one of those guns to the cooperating defendant, and possibly sold another to
    Jordan as well. Rivers confirmed her connection to Jordan and Barber in her post-
    arrest statements, stating that it was Jordan who introduced her to Barber.
    Second, Lynch is linked to both Rivers and Jordan. As to Rivers, a
    confidential informant (“CI”) met with Rivers for a controlled buy; then Rivers
    met with Lynch, who presumably supplied her with the methamphetamine ice that
    was discovered in the course of her subsequent arrest. Rivers also made a post-
    arrest statement implicating Lynch in distributing methamphetamine ice. As to
    Jordan, Rivers stated that it was Jordan who told her about Lynch’s dealing in
    methamphetamine ice. Rivers also stated that Jordan and Lynch procured
    methamphetamine ice on a weekly basis. A CI reported that Lynch agreed to a
    7
    Case: 14-10519     Date Filed: 12/29/2014   Page: 8 of 16
    methamphetamine ice deal and that Jordan volunteered to make the delivery.
    Lynch told the CI to come to Jordan’s residence to complete the transaction, and
    Lynch and Jordan together delivered the methamphetamine ice.
    Accordingly, the evidence is not such that a reasonable factfinder could only
    conclude that the extent of Lynch’s involvement was as a seller and thus there was
    no conspiracy. See 
    Mercer, 165 F.3d at 1335
    . There is significant overlap of the
    participants, and the evidence as a whole permits the inference of a conspiratorial
    agreement in which Lynch took part. See 
    id. Rule 11
    does not require
    uncontroverted evidence of guilt, and circumstantial evidence, particularly
    presence and association with conspirators, may be considered. See 
    Lyons, 53 F.3d at 1201
    . In sum, the court committed no plain error here.
    II.
    Lynch argues that his guilty plea was involuntary because the District Court
    plainly erred in failing to adequately explain the factual basis underlying his plea.
    He also argues that, under Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 
    133 S. Ct. 2151
    ,
    
    186 L. Ed. 2d 314
    (2013), he should be allowed to withdraw his plea so that he can
    plead anew to one of the five substantive counts and have a factfinder determine
    the drug amount for which he is to be held accountable.
    “There is a strong presumption that the statements made during the [plea]
    colloquy are true.” United States v. Medlock, 
    12 F.3d 185
    , 187 (11th Cir. 1994).
    8
    Case: 14-10519     Date Filed: 12/29/2014    Page: 9 of 16
    In accepting a defendant’s guilty plea, the district court must specifically address
    the three core principles of Rule 11 by “ensuring that a defendant (1) enters his
    guilty plea free from coercion, (2) understands the nature of the charges, and (3)
    understands the consequences of his plea.” 
    Moriarty, 429 F.3d at 1019
    ; see also
    Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(G) (requiring that, prior to accepting a guilty plea the
    district court inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant
    understands, “the nature of each charge to which the defendant is pleading”).
    Whether the district court has complied with Rule 11’s second core principle
    “turns on a variety of factors, including the complexity of the offense and the
    defendant’s intelligence and education.” United States v. Telemaque, 
    244 F.3d 1247
    , 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). The court should not assume that simply
    reading the charges to the defendant will suffice; rather, it generally should refer to
    the elements of the crime or verify that counsel has helped the defendant
    understand the charges. See 
    id. However, “for
    simple charges . . . a reading of the
    indictment, followed by an opportunity given the defendant to ask questions about
    it, will usually suffice.” 
    Lopez, 907 F.2d at 1099
    (quotation marks omitted); see
    also United States v. Bell, 
    776 F.2d 965
    , 969 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam)
    (indicating, in a case involving marijuana, that conspiracy to possess with intent to
    distribute narcotics is a “simple” charge).
    In Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that any fact, other than
    9
    Case: 14-10519     Date Filed: 12/29/2014   Page: 10 of 16
    a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed
    statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury. 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 490–91, 
    120 S. Ct. 2348
    , 2363–63, 
    147 L. Ed. 2d 435
    (2000). In Alleyne, the Supreme Court extended
    the holding of Apprendi to cover facts that increase a given crime’s mandatory
    minimum penalty. 570 U.S. at ___, 133 S.Ct. at 2155, 2163. Interpreting Alleyne,
    we have explained that “any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence
    for a crime must be admitted by a defendant or be submitted to a jury and found
    beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Payne, 
    763 F.3d 1301
    , 1304 (11th
    Cir. 2014) (per curiam).
    Here, Lynch’s argument that the District Court did not ensure that he
    understood the nature of the charges against him almost entirely relies on his
    assertion that the factual summary does not show a conspiracy. However, as we
    explained above, Lynch has not shown that the District Court plainly erred in
    finding that the factual basis was sufficient. Because the factual summarization
    presented to the court furnished a sufficient factual basis, and because the court
    ensured that Lynch understood and agreed that the government could prove the
    facts contained in the summary, Lynch’s argument fails.
    To the extent that Lynch otherwise argues that the District Court did not
    ensure that he understood the charges against him, the record shows that the
    District Court explained that, to be found guilty of conspiracy to possess with
    10
    Case: 14-10519     Date Filed: 12/29/2014    Page: 11 of 16
    intent to distribute a substance containing methamphetamine, the government had
    to prove that two or more people came to a mutual understanding to commit an
    unlawful act, that Lynch knowingly and intentionally joined the plan, and that
    more than 50 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine was involved in
    the conspiracy. Lynch stated that he understood, and Lynch also stated that he had
    discussed the charges in the indictment with his attorney and understood them at
    that point as well. Considering that Lynch graduated high school and was facing
    simple charges, and that the court referred Lynch to the elements of the offense and
    verified that counsel helped Lynch understand the charges, and taking into account
    the presumption that a defendant’s statements during the plea colloquy are true, the
    court did not commit plain error under Rule 11. See 
    Medlock, 12 F.3d at 187
    ; 
    Bell, 776 F.2d at 969
    .
    Lynch’s argument regarding Alleyne is meritless, as the District Court
    applied the statutory mandatory minimum sentence based on facts Lynch admitted
    during the course of his guilty plea. See 
    Payne, 763 F.3d at 1304
    . Furthermore, to
    the extent that he argues that the court plainly erred in not explaining Alleyne
    during the plea colloquy, Lynch has not identified any controlling law requiring the
    court to do so, and, in any event, Lynch agreed as part of his plea agreement that
    the enhanced statutory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment applied. In
    short, Lynch has not demonstrated that the District Court plainly erred in failing to
    11
    Case: 14-10519      Date Filed: 12/29/2014   Page: 12 of 16
    properly explain the factual basis for his guilty plea.
    III.
    Lynch additionally appeals his sentence on the ground that the District Court
    clearly erred by not granting a sentence reduction pursuant to the safety valve
    provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The government contends that this challenge is
    barred by the appeal waiver in Lynch’s plea agreement. We agree.
    We review the validity of a sentence appeal waiver de novo. United States
    v. Johnson, 
    541 F.3d 1064
    , 1066 (11th Cir. 2008). A sentence appeal waiver will
    be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily. United States v. Bushert,
    
    997 F.2d 1343
    , 1351 (11th Cir. 1993). To establish that the waiver was made
    knowingly and voluntarily, the government must show either that (1) the district
    court specifically questioned the defendant about the waiver during the plea
    colloquy, or (2) the record makes clear that the defendant otherwise understood the
    full significance of the waiver. 
    Id. We have
    enforced a sentence appeal waiver
    where “the waiver provision was referenced during [the defendant’s] Rule 11 plea
    colloquy and [the defendant] agreed that [he] understood the provision and that
    [he] entered into it freely and voluntarily.” See United States v. Weaver, 
    275 F.3d 1320
    , 1333 (11th Cir. 2001).
    “An appeal waiver includes the waiver of the right to appeal difficult or
    debatable legal issues or even blatant error.” United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399
    12
    Case: 14-10519     Date Filed: 12/29/2014   Page: 13 of 
    16 F.3d 1294
    , 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); see United States v. Howle, 
    166 F.3d 1166
    , 1169 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting that “[w]aiver would be nearly
    meaningless if it included only those appeals that border on the frivolous”).
    Furthermore, a defendant may waive his right to appeal both constitutional and
    non-constitutional issues by executing a valid sentence appeal waiver. See, e.g.,
    United States v. Bascomb, 
    451 F.3d 1292
    , 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that a
    defendant may knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal a sentence on
    Eighth Amendment grounds); United States v. Rubbo, 
    396 F.3d 1330
    , 1335 (11th
    Cir. 2005) (holding the same based upon a challenge made under United States v.
    Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    , 
    160 L. Ed. 2d 621
    (2005)). We have,
    however, suggested that a valid appeal waiver might not prevent a defendant from
    appealing a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum, or from arguing that
    his equal protection rights were violated because he was sentenced based on an
    arbitrary classification such as race or religion. 
    Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1350
    n.18.
    Additionally, “[i]n extreme circumstances—for instance, if the district court had
    sentenced [the defendant] to a public flogging—due process may require that an
    appeal be heard despite a previous waiver.” 
    Howle, 166 F.3d at 1169
    n.5.
    Pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(B), a defendant who conspires to possess with intent
    to distribute 50 grams or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of
    methamphetamine is subject to a statutory penalty of imprisonment for five to forty
    13
    Case: 14-10519     Date Filed: 12/29/2014    Page: 14 of 16
    years. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(B)(viii), 846. However, under the “safety
    valve” provision, the district court “shall impose a sentence pursuant to the
    [Sentencing Guidelines] without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, if the
    court finds at sentencing, after the Government has been afforded the opportunity
    to make a recommendation,” that five conditions are present. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f);
    see U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2; United States v. Brownlee, 
    204 F.3d 1302
    , 1304 (11th Cir.
    2000). The fifth condition requires that, prior to sentencing, the defendant
    “truthfully provide[] to the Government all information and evidence the defendant
    has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct
    or of a common scheme or plan.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). Although it is the
    district court’s responsibility to determine the truthfulness of the information the
    defendant provided to the government, “[t]he burden of proof on the truthfulness
    issue lies, of course, with the defendant.” United States v. Espinosa, 
    172 F.3d 795
    ,
    797 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
    Lynch’s safety valve challenge is barred by his sentence appeal waiver.
    Lynch does not argue that the waiver was not made knowingly and voluntarily. In
    any event, the District Court specifically questioned him regarding the waiver and
    he indicated that he understood the provision and entered into it freely and
    voluntarily. See 
    Weaver, 275 F.3d at 1333
    ; 
    Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351
    .
    Because the sentence appeal waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily,
    14
    Case: 14-10519         Date Filed: 12/29/2014       Page: 15 of 16
    Lynch may not appeal his sentence unless an exception applies. None of the three
    exceptions to the waiver applies here because (1) Lynch’s sentence is not beyond
    the statutory maximum imprisonment term of forty years provided for in
    § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii) (and is in fact at the statutory minimum); (2) his sentence was
    within the Guidelines sentence range; and (3) he does not raise a claim of
    ineffective assistance of counsel.1 See 
    Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1350
    n.18.
    Lynch also challenges whether he should have been given safety valve relief
    from the statutory minimum punishment, which he waived the right to challenge.
    Lynch’s argument that the denial of safety valve relief is effectively the same as an
    upward variance or departure from what his guideline range should have been is
    unpersuasive. The plain language of the appeal waiver exception applies to
    upward departures or variances, not their functional equivalents, and the denial of
    safety valve relief is not an upward departure or variance. To interpret the plea
    agreement otherwise would mean that any guideline calculation issue could fit the
    exception, as any alleged error could be said to be the functional equivalent of an
    upward variance from the “true” guideline range.
    As for Lynch’s argument that the denial of safety valve relief violated
    Alleyne and due process, we have held that a defendant may waive constitutional
    1
    Although Lynch belatedly attempts to assert ineffective assistance of counsel in his
    reply brief, the gravamen of his claim is not attorney ineffectiveness but rather district court
    error.
    15
    Case: 14-10519      Date Filed: 12/29/2014    Page: 16 of 16
    arguments, including an Apprendi claim, see 
    Rubbo, 396 F.3d at 1335
    , and Lynch
    has not explained why an Alleyne claim is meaningfully different. And in any
    case, the failure to award safety valve relief does not result in Alleyne error: not
    receiving a sentence below the statutory minimum does not mean a defendant was
    sentenced to an enhanced statutory minimum sentence based on a fact not alleged
    in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the
    defendant in pleading guilty. See Alleyne, 570 U.S. at ___, 133 S.Ct. at 2155,
    2163. Here, there was no Alleyne error because Count One alleged a conspiracy
    involving 50 grams of a substance containing a detectable amount of
    methamphetamine, the plea agreement stated that the government could prove 50
    grams and that the minimum sentence was imprisonment for five years, and Lynch
    admitted the factual basis of a conspiracy involving 50 grams. His sentence does
    not represent the extreme circumstances where he might be permitted to appeal
    despite his appeal waiver. For the forgoing reasons, we do not review Lynch’s
    sentence and, to the extent this appeal seeks its review, the appeal is dismissed.
    AFFIRMED, in part; DISMISSED, in part.
    16
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-10519

Citation Numbers: 595 F. App'x 943

Judges: Black, Hull, Per Curiam, Tjoflat

Filed Date: 12/29/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024

Authorities (22)

United States v. Angela Ann Rubbo , 396 F.3d 1330 ( 2005 )

United States v. Dekle , 165 F.3d 826 ( 1999 )

United States v. Eric Nathaniel Johnson, United States of ... , 889 F.2d 1032 ( 1989 )

United States v. Thomas A. Owen and Jacqueline L. Owen , 858 F.2d 1514 ( 1988 )

Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348 ( 2000 )

United States v. Cotton , 122 S. Ct. 1781 ( 2002 )

United States v. Elizabeth Marie Morse Thompson , 422 F.3d 1285 ( 2005 )

United States v. Brown , 587 F.3d 1082 ( 2009 )

United States v. Hazel Lyons, Judith Price, Terry Reese, A/... , 53 F.3d 1198 ( 1995 )

United States v. James Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343 ( 1993 )

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-... , 12 F.3d 185 ( 1994 )

United States v. Howle , 166 F.3d 1166 ( 1999 )

United States v. Johnson , 541 F.3d 1064 ( 2008 )

United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 124 S. Ct. 2333 ( 2004 )

United States v. Bennie Bascomb, Jr. , 451 F.3d 1292 ( 2006 )

United States v. Brownlee , 204 F.3d 1302 ( 2000 )

United States v. Mercer , 165 F.3d 1331 ( 1999 )

United States v. Alberto Calderon , 127 F.3d 1314 ( 1997 )

United States v. Armando Lopez, Felix A. Beruvides, Ricardo ... , 907 F.2d 1096 ( 1990 )

Alleyne v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2151 ( 2013 )

View All Authorities »