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 sentence, holding that the district court did not err in treating his prior Iowa drug conviction as a controlled substance offense for sentencing purposes.

Antonio Johnson pleaded guilty to unlawful firearm possession and received a 60-month prison sentence from the district court. On appeal, Johnson challenged whether his prior Iowa drug conviction—specifically possessing marijuana with intent to deliver—qualified as a "controlled substance offense" under federal sentencing guidelines. He argued the underlying Iowa statute was overbroad because it encompassed aiding, abetting, conspiracy, and attempt forms of the offense.

The appellate court rejected Johnson's challenge, finding his Iowa conviction plainly fell within the definition of a controlled substance offense. The court relied on established Eighth Circuit precedent confirming that federal sentencing guidelines reasonably incorporate accomplice and inchoate liability forms into the definition, and that the specific Iowa statute Johnson was convicted under had already been classified as a controlled substance offense in prior decisions. The district court properly relied on this prior conviction when calculating Johnson's sentencing guidelines range.

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

Key issues

Whether a prior conviction for drug possession with intent to deliver under Iowa law qualifies as a controlled substance offense under federal sentencing guidelines
Whether inclusion of aiding, abetting, conspiracy, and attempt liability in a drug statute renders it overbroad
Proper application of the federal sentencing guidelines definition of controlled substance offense

Procedural posture

Johnson appealed his guilty plea conviction and 60-month sentence imposed by the district court, challenging the classification of his prior drug conviction at sentencing.

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[Unpublished]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.