Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03195/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03195-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Sorrells
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3195

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jeffrey Sorrells, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2007

 Filed: May 29, 2007

___________

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

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Sorrells pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base and possessing a

firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(n), 924(a)(1)(D). At sentencing, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court rejected an objection

based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), adopted the drug quantity

findings in paragraph 26 of Sorrells’s Presentence Investigation Report, and sentenced

him to 46 months in prison. On appeal, we remanded for resentencing, concluding

that Sorrells adequately objected to the facts underlying the relevant conduct recited

in paragraph 26 and the government failed to prove those facts by a preponderance of

the evidence at sentencing. United States v. Sorrells, 432 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2005).

Appellate Case: 06-3195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313624
1

The HONORABLE DEAN WHIPPLE, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

On remand, the district court1

 held an evidentiary sentencing hearing, as our

prior opinion expressly permitted. See 432 F.3d at 839. Four law enforcement

officers testified for the government that Sorrells was charged with distribution of

crack cocaine in Tennessee in February 2001, charges that are still pending, and that

confidential informants alerted Springfield, Missouri, police in late 2002 that Sorrells

was selling crack cocaine in that city. They further testified that Sorrells was in

possession of 1.43 grams of crack cocaine when treated at a hospital emergency room

in January 2003; sold substances that field-tested positive for cocaine to undercover

officers in May and September 2003; dropped a paper containing 0.34 grams of crack

cocaine in the yard when officers executed a warrant to search his residence in June

2003; sold a substance containing 0.84 grams of crack cocaine to an undercover

officer in October 2003 (the drug offense of conviction); and possessed 22 grams of

marijuana, a firearm, and $1094 in currency when stopped for a traffic offense in

January 2004 (the firearm offense of conviction). Tests by the Missouri Highway

Patrol Crime Laboratory confirmed that the substances seized from Sorrells in January

and June 2003, and the substance he sold in October, were crack cocaine. Sorrells

told two of the officers and the probation officer that he has used marijuana and

powder cocaine but not crack cocaine. The defense called no witnesses. 

The district court found that the probation officer properly computed the base

offense level in paragraph 26 of the PSR by including as relevant conduct the

quantities of crack cocaine found in January and June 2003 and sold by Sorrells in

October 2003, plus the marijuana seized in January 2004. The court then sentenced

Sorrells to 46 months in prison, within the resulting advisory guidelines range. On

appeal, Sorrells argues the government failed to prove (i) that he possessed the

quantities found in January and June 2003 with intent to distribute, rather than for

personal use, and (ii) that these quantities were relevant conduct within the meaning

Appellate Case: 06-3195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313624
-3-

of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a). We review the district court’s findings regarding these issues

for clear error. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 311 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2002).

After careful review of the sentencing record, we conclude that the district court did

not commit clear error in finding that Sorrells possessed the crack cocaine found in

January and June 2003 with intent to distribute -- Sorrells having repeatedly denied

using crack cocaine -- and that this conduct was “part of the same course of conduct

or common scheme or plan as the [October 2003] offense of conviction.” U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.3(a)(2).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3195 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313624