Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01353/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01353-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yureko Suntaun Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1353

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Yureko Suntaun Johnson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2006

Filed: July 11, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Yureko Suntaun Johnson pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute a mixture containing cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846 (Count 1); distributing a detectable amount

of crack, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2

(Counts 2-3); distributing 5 grams or more of crack, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 4); possessing a detectable

amount of crack with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 5); and being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 922(g)(1) (Count 6). 

Appellate Case: 05-1353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2006 Entry ID: 2065974
1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

-2-

Following a bench trial to determine drug quantity on Count 1, the district

court1

 found beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson possessed with intent to

distribute well in excess of 50 grams of crack: 30.85 grams of crack was established

by Johnson’s guilty plea and admissions, and another 79.2 grams of crack was

established by the testimony of government witnesses at trial. With a total offense

level of 34 and a Category IV criminal history, Johnson’s Guidelines imprisonment

range was 210-262 months, increased to 240-262 months because of the 20-year

statutory mandatory minimum under Count 1. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The

district court sentenced Johnson to concurrent terms of 240 months in prison on

Counts 1-5 and 120 months in prison on Count 6, to be followed by concurrent

supervised-release terms of 10 years on Count 1; 6 years on Counts 2, 3, and 5; 8

years on Count 4; and 3 years on Count 6.

On appeal, Johnson’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable

and that the district court erred in finding Johnson was responsible for more than 50

grams of crack because the government witnesses’ testimony was not credible.

Johnson has filed a motion for new counsel.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Johnson

conspired to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack. See United

States v. Alexander, 408 F.3d 1003, 1009 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review); United

States v. Gary, 341 F.3d 829, 835 (8th Cir. 2003) (district court’s determination of

witness credibility is virtually unreviewable on appeal), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1139

(2004); United States v. Goolsby, 209 F.3d 1079, 1081 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

(in determining what weight to give trial testimony, district court is free to believe all,

some, or none of witness’s testimony; court’s drug quantity calculation, based on

Appellate Case: 05-1353 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2006 Entry ID: 2065974
-3-

witnesses’ testimony as to how much drugs witnesses saw defendant purchase and sell

over course of year, was not clearly erroneous).

We also conclude that Johnson’s sentence is not unreasonable given that he

received the statutory mandatory minimum sentence, which was at the bottom of his

Guidelines range. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir.)

(sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and defendant must

rebut such presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005); United States v. Chacon,

330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority for district court to depart from

statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only

when government makes motion for substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for

safety-valve relief).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 US 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Johnson’s motion for new counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1353 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/11/2006 Entry ID: 2065974