Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01308/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01308-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicholas R. Dieken
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1308

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Nebraska.

Nicholas R. Dieken, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 14, 2005

Filed: January 5, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

A jury found Nicholas Dieken guilty of conspiracy to distribute or possess with

intent to distribute at least 200 grams but less than 350 grams of methamphetamine.

Dieken was acquitted on count II, which involved the use or possession of a firearm.

The district court1

 sentenced Dieken to ninety-seven months' imprisonment followed

by a five-year term of supervised release. Dieken appeals. 

Appellate Case: 05-1308 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2006 Entry ID: 1993514
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. United

States v. Lopez, 384 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2004). On November 28, 2001, Dieken

turned onto a highway directly in front of Clay County Sheriff Jeff Franklin's

oncoming vehicle, requiring Franklin to decelerate to avoid a collision. Franklin

stopped Dieken's vehicle after Franklin observed Dieken make a wide turn and cross

the center line three times within a mile. There were two other people in the car,

including the owner of the vehicle, Kristle Kenley, who was the rear-seat passenger

at that time. 

In response to Franklin's questioning concerning Dieken's erratic driving,

Dieken told Franklin that he had just "woke up" and "wasn't quite functioning yet."

Franklin learned that Dieken did not have his license with him and that there was a

warrant for Dieken's arrest. Franklin also smelled the odor of marijuana in the car.

Franklin arrested Dieken on the outstanding warrant. The two passengers were also

arrested and all three were placed in custody in the county jail in separate cells. 

During this stop, Franklin obtained consent from Dieken and Kenley to search

the car. The vehicle was towed and searched at a later time as well. Those searches

produced several items including a jacket containing bags of methamphetamine and

a metal box containing marijuana and a scale. The search of Dieken's person yielded

$234.00 in cash and keys that fit the metal box. 

Following his arrest, Dieken spoke with officials several times regarding his

drug trafficking participation. Each time Dieken was read his Miranda rights, which

he waived, and each officer testified that Dieken was coherent at the time of their

interviews and did not appear to be under the influence of any drugs or alcohol.

During these conversations, Dieken admitted that the $234.00 found on his person at

the time of his arrest was from marijuana sales. When asked why the passengers

Appellate Case: 05-1308 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2006 Entry ID: 1993514
-3-

seemed to be moving around so much when Franklin pulled in behind the car, Dieken

told Franklin that he and the front-seat passenger had dropped a marijuana bud the

night before and they were looking for it. Dieken also told officers that he owned the

metal box containing marijuana and that he helped James Malone steal

methamphetamine from someone known as "Mexico Joe" around June 2001. Dieken

further admitted that he bought methamphetamine from and sold it to Kenley; he

accompanied Kenley when she bought methamphetamine and received portions; and

he had several sources for methamphetamine, including James Malone. 

Trial ensued on October 18, 2004. The government offered several witnesses

who testified pursuant to plea agreements, including Malone. Malone testified that

he bought methamphetamine from and sold methamphetamine to Dieken, and that he

provided a handgun to Dieken to use during the "Mexico Joe" ripoff. Scott Miller also

testified pursuant to a plea agreement on the government's behalf. Miller testified that

he saw Dieken and Malone exchange drugs, heard them talking about quantities of

drugs and the sale of drugs, and saw Dieken sell drugs to others. Miller also testified

that Dieken told him about ripping off "Mexico Joe."

The district court reduced Dieken's criminal history category from four to three,

which resulted in a sentencing range of 97 to 121 months. The district court sentenced

Dieken at the low end of the range, ninety-seven months' imprisonment. On appeal

Dieken challenges that sentence on various grounds including the use of prior

convictions (including juvenile convictions) to arrive at the sentence and the district

court's inadequate consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in

arriving at the sentence. Dieken further challenges the district court's denial of his

motion to suppress, arguing that the evidence obtained from the search of the vehicle

and the statements he made to officers were obtained in violation of his Fourth and

Fifth Amendment rights. Finally, Dieken challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting his conviction. 

Appellate Case: 05-1308 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/05/2006 Entry ID: 1993514
2

Before reaching the issues regarding the reasonableness of Dieken's sentence,

the alleged Fifth Amendment violation, and the evidentiary issues raised on appeal,

we pause to dispose of Dieken's arguments that his prior convictions should have been

submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that his juvenile

adjudications should not have been considered prior convictions for sentencing

purposes. Both contentions have been rejected by the Supreme Court and this court,

respectively. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005) (reaffirming the

Court's holding that prior convictions are not "facts" that must be decided by a jury

for purposes of sentencing); and United States v. Smalley, 294 F.3d 1030, 1033 (8th

Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1114 (2003) (concluding that juvenile adjudications

can rightly be characterized as "prior convictions" for Apprendi purposes).

-4-

II. DISCUSSION

A. Reasonableness Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

Dieken argues2

 that not only did the district court unreasonably place Dieken

in an invalid guideline range by using prior convictions, a contention we have easily

disposed of, but that the district court failed to adequately consider all of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors in rendering Dieken's sentence. We review the reasonableness of

the sentenced imposed by the district court for an abuse of discretion. United States

v. Dalton, 404 F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997,

1003 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). A district court's ruling may

be unreasonable if it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received

significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or

considers only appropriate factors but nevertheless commits a clear error of judgment

by imposing a sentence that lies outside the limited range of choice dictated by the

facts of the case. United States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080, 1084 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Specifically, Dieken claims that the district court failed to adequately

contemplate his history and his troubled family life; and failed to consider the

particular portion of section 3553(a) that states that the court should impose a

Appellate Case: 05-1308 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/05/2006 Entry ID: 1993514
-5-

sufficient sentence but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of the

punishment. Dieken further claims that his ninety-seven month sentence makes it

more difficult for him to participate in any educational and/or treatment programs

available through the Bureau of Prisons–programs that he feels he needs given his

drug addiction, young age and limited education. We disagree with Dieken's

contentions. 

Here, it is clear the district court fully understood that the Guidelines were

advisory at the time of Dieken's sentence and that it was to fashion a sentence that met

the goals of section 3553(a). The district court analyzed the section 3553(a) factors

in this case and deduced that the suggested guidelines sentence reflected "a perfectly

reasonable sentence to impose." Dieken's age, drug use and family situation simply

did not, according to the court, distinguish him from any other similarly situated

defendant to a degree that necessitated deviation from the suggested guidelines

sentence. 

Like the Seventh Circuit, we do not require a district court to categorically

rehearse each of the section 3553(a) factors on the record when it imposes a sentence

as long as it is clear that they were considered. United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725,

729 (7th Cir. 2005). In this case it is clear the factors were fully considered. The

sentence imposed by the district court within the suggested guideline range is not

unreasonable. 

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

As to the overall sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, upon

our de novo review and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury

verdict, we have no doubt there was sufficient evidence that a conspiracy existed and

that Dieken agreed with Malone and others to distribute methamphetamine and to

possess it with intent to distribute. United States v. Vinton, 429 F.3d 811, 815 (8th

Appellate Case: 05-1308 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/05/2006 Entry ID: 1993514
3

The Honorable David L. Piester, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

-6-

Cir. 2005) (setting forth the elements necessary to obtain a conspiracy conviction and

reiterating that "[i]n reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims, we view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the government, with all reasonable inferences

and credibility determinations made in support of the jury's verdict."). 

C. Fourth and Fifth Amendment

We have considered Dieken's remaining arguments challenging the district

court's denial of his motion to suppress concerning the search of the car and the items

recovered, as well as the admissions he made to the officers and conclude that the

district court properly rejected these claims. We affirm the well-reasoned opinion set

forth by the magistrate judge3

 and adopted by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1308 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/05/2006 Entry ID: 1993514