Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04109/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John R. Kay
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

Apparently the Task Force routinely conducts surveillance at St. Louis stores,

looking for individuals who go directly to the cold medication aisle, select the

maximum number of boxes allowed by Missouri law (without comparison shopping),

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4109

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern 

v. * District of Missouri.

* 

John R. Kay, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 11, 2005

Filed: March 16, 2006

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Kay appeals his conviction and sentence for possessing pseudoephedrine,

knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, and for being a felon in

possession of a firearm. 

The evidence at trial showed that members of the St. Louis County

Methamphetamine Precursor Diversion Task Force1

 observed Kay purchase two boxes

Appellate Case: 04-4109 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2006 Entry ID: 2021357
and then pay cash and leave. 

-2-

of pseudoephedrine-based cold pills from a Target store in St. Louis. He then returned

to his vehicle and left the parking lot. Members of the task force followed Kay's

vehicle to a Walgreen's store. Kay entered the store, and returned to his vehicle with

more boxes of pseudoephedrine. At this point, the task force members approached

Kay and identified the purpose of their investigation. After Kay was placed under

arrest and given his Miranda warnings, officers searched Kay and the vehicle.

Detectives found hundreds of loose pseudoephedrine pills, as well as boxes of newly

purchased pseudoephedrine. The evidence indicated that Kay had visited and

purchased pseudoephedrine from four different stores that same day. Detectives also

found a 12-gauge shotgun wrapped in a blanket together with an antique rifle during

the vehicle search. 

Kay told the officers on the scene that he was a methamphetamine user, and that

he was "collecting pills," but that he was trying to stop using methamphetamine. He

also denied knowing about the 12-gauge shotgun. However, Kay admitted that he

knew about the antique rifle, and as previously noted, the two guns were wrapped

together. Further, there was 12-gauge ammunition lying in the front-seat passenger

area of the vehicle. After Kay's arrest, officers searched Kay's Potosi, Missouri, home.

They found more pseudoephedrine pills and boxes, as well as other

methamphetamine-making materials, such as anhydrous ammonia. 

On appeal, Kay challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on both counts, and

also raises sentencing issues. We have no difficulty resolving the sufficiency question

in the government's favor. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

jury's verdict, United States v. Frauendorfer, 428 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir. 2005), we

have no doubt that a reasonable jury could have convicted Kay of both counts, based

on the evidence recounted in the previous paragraphs. 

Appellate Case: 04-4109 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2006 Entry ID: 2021357
-3-

With regard to sentencing, Kay argues the case must be remanded for

sentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and that the

district court committed error by using Kay's previous felony conviction to assign his

criminal history category without having that fact determined by a jury. Turning first

to the latter contention, we reject Kay's argument because a prior felony conviction

is a sentencing factor for the court, not a factual issue that needs to be tried to the jury.

United States v. Levering, 431 F.3d 289, 295 (8th Cir. 2005).

As to Kay's Booker argument, the government concedes that the case must be

remanded for re-sentencing because Kay preserved his objection at sentencing.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court in all respects, except that we remand for resentencing in light of Booker.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4109 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2006 Entry ID: 2021357