Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01261/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01261-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laverne William Bieghler
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1261

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Laverne William Bieghler, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: September 25, 2006

Filed: October 3, 2006 (corrected 10/27/06)

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Laverne Bieghler appeals his convictions for conspiracy to manufacture

methamphetamine, manufacture of methamphetamine, and endangering human life

while manufacturing a controlled substance. 

At trial, the government called three individuals who, pursuant to plea

agreements, testified they engaged in the manufacture of methamphetamine with

Bieghler. One of these witnesses testified that Bieghler asked "a lot of people" to

assist in the manufacture of methamphetamine, by, among other actions, purchasing

pseudoephedrine. Two of these witnesses further testified, in non-responsive answers,

Appellate Case: 06-1261 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2006 Entry ID: 2095696
1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.

2

Bieghler also argues for inconsistent verdicts and improper application of

sentencing guidelines, but both are actually insufficient evidence arguments. 

-2-

that Bieghler was a felon with prison history. The district court1

 denied a motion for

mistrial after the revelation of Bieghler's felon status. Further evidence established

that Bieghler manufactured methamphetamine at his residence with minors living in

the home. A final government witness, experienced in methamphetamine lab

forensics, testified about the dangers of methamphetamine production.

After conviction, the court calculated a base offense level of 26 with an

automatic three-level enhancement for endangerment of human life, leaving the base

level at 29. The court then considered offense-specific conduct, adding six levels for

endangering the life of a minor. The court also added three levels for "managing"

criminal activity. Finally, the court denied a request for downward adjustment based

upon acceptance of responsibility. This left Bieghler at an offense level of 38, with

a criminal history category VI, making the advisory sentencing range 360 months to

life. After considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court sentenced Bieghler

to 240-months' incarceration. Bieghler appeals, claiming insufficiency of the

evidence, error by the district court in denying his motion for mistrial, and that the

ultimate sentence was unreasonable.2

 We find each argument to be without merit.

Without citing authority, Bieghler claims that a lack of "forensic evidence" at

trial requires reversal. Likewise, we find no authority for such a proposition. In fact,

"forensic evidence" is not required for conviction. E.g., United States v. Frokjer, 415

F.3d 865, 869 (8th Cir. 2005) (noting that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for

conviction). Given the above recounted evidence, we believe that, at least, a

reasonable jury could have found Bieghler guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus

we may not reverse the conviction. Id.

Appellate Case: 06-1261 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2006 Entry ID: 2095696
-3-

Bieghler also requests reversal based on the denial of his motion for mistrial.

In this regard, Bieghler suggests prosecutorial misconduct for failure to prepare

witnesses, leading to the revelation of Bieghler's felon status. The trial judge has

discretion to determine the prejudicial effect of such statements, and we reverse only

for abuse of discretion in weighing the prejudicial statements against the strength of

the government's case. United States v. Katz, 445 F.3d 1023, 1034 (8th Cir.), petition

for cert. filed, No. 06-339 (Sept. 5, 2006).

 

Here, the district court found the answers involving Bieghler's history to be

non-responsive. Given that, and that this evidence was, in part, elicited by Bieghler's

own counsel on cross-examination, we seriously doubt the existence of prosecutorial

misconduct. We find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in deciding that

the strength of the government's case outweighed any possible prejudice. United

States v. Beeks, 224 F.3d 741, 745 (8th Cir. 2000) (requiring consideration of

cumulative effect compared with strength of admissible evidence of guilt).

Finally, Bieghler claims his sentence is unreasonable. While Bieghler made

cooperative proffers pre-trial, a defendant who holds the government to its factual

burden at trial is normally barred from a downward adjustment for accepting

responsibility. United States v. Fuller, 374 F.3d 617, 623 (8th Cir. 2004), cert. denied,

543 U.S. 1073 (2005). Bieghler did so here and is not entitled to the downward

adjustment. Given that the properly calculated advisory range was 360 months to life,

a sentence of 240 months is not unreasonable.

We affirm the district court in all respects.

 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1261 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/03/2006 Entry ID: 2095696