UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-07-07No. No. 20-2072

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed Johnson's conviction and 60-month sentence, holding that his prior Iowa conviction for marijuana possession with intent to deliver qualified as a controlled substance offense under the sentencing guidelines, and that the Iowa statute's inclusion of aiding, abetting, conspiracy, and attempt was not impermissibly overbroad.

Antonio Johnson pleaded guilty to unlawful firearm possession under federal law and received a 60-month prison sentence. On appeal, Johnson challenged whether his prior Iowa drug conviction—for possessing marijuana with intent to deliver—qualified as a "controlled substance offense" under the sentencing guidelines, which would have increased his base offense level. Johnson argued the Iowa statute was impermissibly overbroad because it encompassed aiding, abetting, conspiracy, and attempt offenses.

The court rejected Johnson's overbreadth argument, finding that prior Eighth Circuit decisions had already settled this issue. The court noted that the sentencing guidelines' definition of controlled substance offense reasonably includes derivative forms of criminal liability such as aiding and abetting, and that the Eighth Circuit had previously upheld the same Iowa statute as qualifying under this definition. Because Johnson's prior conviction properly counted as a controlled substance offense, the district court correctly calculated his sentencing guideline range.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a prior state drug conviction qualifies as a 'controlled substance offense' for sentencing guideline purposes
Whether including aiding and abetting, conspiracy, and attempt in the definition of controlled substance offense renders a statute overbroad
Proper calculation of offense level when a prior controlled substance conviction applies

Procedural posture

Johnson appealed his guilty plea conviction and 60-month sentence imposed by the district court, challenging the sentencing guideline calculation.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Antonio D. Johnson pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(9), and 924(a)(2). The district court

sentenced him to 60 months in prison. He appeals his conviction. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The district court set Johnsons base offense level at 20 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) because he had a prior “controlled substance offense” for possessing marijuana with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code §§ 124.401(1)(d) and 124.204(m). The guidelines range was 70 to 87 months. The court varied downward, sentencing Johnson to 60 months.

Johnson believes his Iowa conviction is not a controlled substance offense. This court reviews de novo. See United States v. Williams, 926 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2019). There is no merit to this argument. A “controlled substance offense” is a state or federal offense, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that prohibits, among other things, the manufacture or distribution of a “controlled substance.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). The offense includes “aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting to commit such offenses.” Id., comment. (n.1).

Johnson argues the Iowa statute is overbroad because it includes aiding, abetting, conspiracy, and attempt. Eighth Circuit precedent precludes this argument. This court has held that “U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, comment. (n.1), is a reasonable interpretation of the career offender guidelines that is well within the Sentencing Commissions statutory authority.” United States v. Mendoza-Figueroa, 65 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 1995). See United States v. Garcia, 946 F.3d 413, 417 (8th Cir. 2019) (holding that a prior conviction for aiding and abetting the distribution of meth is a controlled substance offense). This court also has held a conviction under Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(d) is a controlled substance offense. See United States v. Clayborn, 951 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2020) (rejecting the argument that a conviction under Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(d) is overbroad because it includes aiding, abetting, and conspiring).

The district court did not err in finding Johnson had a prior controlled substance offense.

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.