United States v. Ezra Johnson ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 18-3133
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Ezra Emil Johnson
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
    ____________
    Submitted: September 23, 2019
    Filed: December 3, 2019
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Ezra Emil Johnson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more
    of a mixture or substance containing heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
    841(b)(1)(B), and 846. The district court1 sentenced Johnson to 132 months’
    imprisonment. We affirm.
    The district court calculated Johnson’s advisory sentencing range under the
    U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines). Adopting the presentence investigation
    report, the district court applied the Guidelines career offender provision, because
    Johnson had one prior conviction that qualified as “a crime of violence” and another
    that qualified as “a controlled substance offense.” See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). The
    court determined that Johnson’s total offense level was 31, that his criminal history
    category was VI, and that his advisory sentencing range was 188 to 235 months’
    imprisonment. The court varied downward after consideration of the 18 U.S.C.
    § 3553(a) factors.
    Johnson argues that the application of the Guidelines career offender provision
    violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He contends that the
    imposition of a more severe advisory range punishes him twice for his earlier
    offenses. The Supreme Court has rejected similar double jeopardy challenges,
    “because the enhanced punishment imposed for the later offense is not to be viewed
    as either a new jeopardy or additional penalty for the earlier crimes, but instead as a
    stiffened penalty for the latest crime . . . .” Witte v. United States, 
    515 U.S. 389
    , 400
    (1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the career offender
    provision increases Johnson’s total offense level for his current offense, it is not an
    additional penalty under the Fifth Amendment, and Johnson’s argument thus fails.
    See United States v. Thompson, 
    972 F.2d 201
    , 204 n.3 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that
    the career offender provision does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause); see also
    United States v. Smith, 
    581 F.3d 692
    , 695 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that increasing a
    sentence based on a prior conviction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause).
    1
    The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern
    District of Iowa.
    -2-
    Finally, Johnson’s sentence is substantively reasonable. The record establishes
    that the district court sufficiently considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and did
    not abuse its discretion in varying downward. See United States v. Zauner, 
    688 F.3d 426
    , 429 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting that, when a district court varies downward, “it is
    nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still
    further” (quoting United States v. Lazarski, 
    560 F.3d 731
    , 733 (8th Cir. 2009))); see
    also United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
    (discussing standard of appellate review for sentencing decisions).
    The sentence is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -3-