Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01489/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01489-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario E. Miranda
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. 04-1489

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Mario E. Miranda, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2004

Filed: December 13, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A September 1998 indictment charged that Mario Miranda possessed

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In

April 1999, while on pretrial release, Miranda failed to report as directed. He was

eventually arrested in August 2003, and shortly thereafter he entered into a plea

agreement. Upon his guilty plea, the district court1

 sentenced Miranda to 168 months'

imprisonment and 3 years' supervised release.

Appellate Case: 04-1489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2004 Entry ID: 1843758 
-2-

On appeal, Miranda argues that the district court clearly erred in assessing

criminal history points for two prior marijuana-possession convictions that were

uncounseled, and in finding he had not accepted responsibility. We reject both

arguments. First, the district court did not clearly err in the criminal-history

computation: Miranda admitted at sentencing that he received assistance of counsel

in both cases. In any event, the convictions were misdeamenors and Miranda

received no prison terms; thus, they were properly counted. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c);

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (backg’d.); United States v. Jenkins, 989 F.2d 979, 979-

980 (8th Cir. 1993). Second, the court did not clearly err in denying an acceptanceof-responsibility reduction. The court properly granted an obstruction-of-justice

enhancement because Miranda had evaded arrest for four years, and Miranda’s case

did not present circumstances warranting both the enhancement and a reduction. See

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 comment. (n.4) (only in extraordinary case may adjustments for

both obstruction and acceptance apply); United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961, 969

(8th Cir.) (cessation of obstructive conduct coupled with guilty plea to underlying

offense does not make case “extraordinary”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1056 (1999).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1489 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2004 Entry ID: 1843758