Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03391/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03391-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jamesell J. Campbell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3391

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Jamesell J. Campbell, aka Jell-O, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 8, 2010

Filed: July 30, 2010

___________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jamesell Campbell pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and one count of

criminal forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853. The plea subjected Campbell to a

statutory mandatory minimum penalty of five years' imprisonment under 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(B). The presentence investigation report (PSR) set Campbell's base

offense level at 26. The PSR also called for two Guidelines adjustments: (1) a

two-level adjustment for possessing a weapon during the drug offense under U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(b)(1); and (2) a two-level adjustment for obstruction of justice under

Appellate Case: 09-3391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688603
1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

-2-

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The district court1

 sentenced Campbell to five years' imprisonment.

On appeal, Campbell argues that the district court erred in imposing the two

Guidelines enhancements. Campbell also argues that the 100-to-1 crack/powder

cocaine ratio is unconstitutional. We affirm. 

I. Background

Campbell pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute cocaine base, in violation of § 846, and one count of criminal forfeiture

pursuant to § 853. The plea subjected Campbell to a statutory mandatory minimum

sentence of five years imprisonment pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(B). Campbell had a base

offense level of 26. Campbell's PSR also called for a two-level adjustment for

possessing a weapon during the drug offense and a two-level adjustment for

obstruction of justice. After applying the adjustments and Campbell's applicable

criminal history score, the PSR recommended an advisory Guidelines range of 87 to

108 months' imprisonment.

 Campbell objected to the Guidelines enhancements, claiming that the alleged

incident with the weapon never occurred. Campbell further objected to the imposition

of the mandatory minimum sentence on the ground that the 100-to-1 crack/powder

cocaine ratio embedded in § 841 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth

Amendment. At the sentencing hearing, the district court received testimony that

included the following. During its investigation of Campbell the police used a

confidential informant. The informant called authorities and claimed with "urgency

in his voice" that Campbell had accused him of being a snitch and was threatening to

shoot him and his family. During this incident, Campbell allegedly brandished a

firearm. At sentencing, after receiving testimony, the district court rejected Campbell's

Appellate Case: 09-3391 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688603
2

The district court rejected Campbell's objections to the two sentencing

enhancements but did not accept the PSR's calculation of the base offense level

finding that the base offense level was substantially increased because it involved

crack cocaine, which the court held is "no worse than powder cocaine." The court then

recalculated Campbell's base offense level at 20 and applied the two levels for

possession of a weapon and two levels for obstruction of justice, for an adjusted

offense base level of 24.

-3-

objections to the PSR and set a revised Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months'2

.

However, in light of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence, the court sentenced

Campbell to five years' imprisonment.

II. Discussion

A. Sentencing Enhancements

On appeal, Campbell maintains that the hearsay testimony that the district court

relied on to establish his sentencing enhancements under the Guidelines lacked

sufficient indicia of reliability and should have therefore been excluded.

"We review the trial court's factual findings in support of a sentencing

enhancement for clear error and its application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts

de novo." United States v. Campbell, 270 F.3d 702, 706 (8th Cir. 2001).

A district court has wide discretion at sentencing as to the kind of

information considered or its source. In resolving any reasonable dispute

concerning a factor important to the sentencing determination, the court

may consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility

under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the

information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable

accuracy. The relevant information a court may consider includes

criminal activity for which the defendant has not been prosecuted and

uncorroborated hearsay, provided the defendant is given a chance to

rebut or explain it. 

Appellate Case: 09-3391 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688603
-4-

United States v. Pratt, 553 F.3d 1165, 1170 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations,

alterations, and citations omitted). "The determination of whether hearsay evidence

is sufficiently reliable to support a sentencing decision depends on the facts of the

particular case and is committed to the sound discretion of the district court." United

States v. Cassidy, 6 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 1993) (internal citation omitted). In this

case, the record reflects that Officer Bogdanoff, who stated that he talked with the

informant as he encountered Campbell, testified consistently with the informant's

testimony. Officer Bogdanoff also testified to the reliable record the informant had

established with authorities. Campbell notes appropriate concerns about the

informant's credibility, such as his criminal history and incentive to aid the

government, but such credibility assessments are for the trial court to make and they

are not present to a degree in this case to warrant reversal. Campbell was given a

chance to rebut the informant's hearsay claims, but the district court accepted the

government's argument for the enhancement. Accordingly, we find no error in the

district court's analysis. 

B. Crack Cocaine/Powder Cocaine Disparity

Campbell next argues that the 100-to-1 crack/powder cocaine ratio incorporated

into § 841(b) disproportionately impacts African-Americans and is unconstitutional.

Campbell acknowledges that our precedents have addressed and rejected this

argument but raises it for purposes of issue preservation.

"The question of whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law and

must be reviewed de novo." United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 658 (8th Cir. 1997)

(internal quotations and citation omitted).

"District courts lack the authority to reduce sentences below

congressionally-mandated statutory minimums. Further, district courts may not

consider the powder-to-base ratio disparity when deviating from statutory minimums

on consideration of substantial assistance motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e)." United

Appellate Case: 09-3391 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688603
-5-

States v. Watts, 553 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citations

omitted).

Finally, we have held that § 841(b) does not violate the Equal Protection

Clause. United States v. McClellon, 578 F.3d 846, 861 (8th Cir. 2009); see also United

States v. Mendoza, 876 F.2d 639, 641 (8th Cir. 1989) (finding that § 841(b)(1)'s

mandatory minimum does not violate due process, or equal protection rights, or

constitute cruel and unusual punishment). Accordingly, Campbell's challenge to §

841(b) fails.

III. Conclusion

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3391 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688603