Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01798/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01798-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gilarime Michael Mueller
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1798

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Gilarime Michael Mueller, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 23, 2010

Filed: March 29, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gilarime Mueller appeals the district court’s1

 judgment entered after a jury

found him guilty of conspiring to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846; and possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Mueller’s

counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), arguing that the convictions were not supported by the evidence; that the

district court erred in not reducing the offense level under Spears v. United States, 129

Appellate Case: 09-1798 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2010 Entry ID: 3649089
-2-

S. Ct. 840 (2009) (per curiam), based on the disparity between powder cocaine and

cocaine base; that the court erred in enhancing the sentence for obstruction of justice;

and that the court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained during

the search of Mueller’s residence. Mueller seeks appointment of new counsel and has

filed a pro se brief, in which he argues that the district court violated Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), when it attributed 4.5 kilograms of cocaine base to him;

that there was no proof supporting the drug quantity found by the court; and that his

sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.

We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support Mueller’s conviction on

both counts. See United States v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (this

court reviews sufficiency of evidence in light most favorable to government, resolving

evidentiary conflicts in government’s favor and accepting all reasonable inferences

that support jury’s verdict). Four cooperating witnesses testified that they bought

cocaine base from Mueller, or participated with Mueller in an arrangement to buy

cocaine base or to buy powder cocaine and convert it to cocaine base. See United

States v. Cruz, 285 F.3d 692, 700 (8th Cir. 2002) (to prove conspiracy, government

must prove existence of agreement to achieve illegal purpose, and defendant’s

knowledge of agreement and knowing participation in conspiracy). Other testimony

showed that Mueller had been present during the cooking, at his residence, of 39.54

grams of cocaine base later seized by police. See United States v. Parker, 587 F.3d

871, 881 (8th Cir. 2009) (to sustain conviction for possession with intent to distribute,

government must prove defendant knowingly possessed and intended to distribute

drugs); United States v. Mendoza, 421 F.3d 663, 668-69 (8th Cir. 2005) (elements of

aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute are that defendant associated

himself with possession of drugs with intent to distribute, he participated in this

activity as something that he wished to bring about, and he sought by his action to

make this activity succeed). All of the cooperating witnesses testified about their plea

agreements and their hopes for reduced sentences in return for their cooperation. See

United States v. Foxx, 544 F.3d 943, 950 (8th Cir. 2008) (credibility determinations

Appellate Case: 09-1798 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2010 Entry ID: 3649089
-3-

are well within province of jury), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 91 (2009); United States v.

McKay, 431 F.3d 1085, 1094 (8th Cir. 2005) (impeachment evidence was for jury to

consider).

We also hold that counsel’s Spears argument fails, as the district court

addressed the powder/crack cocaine disparity and found that it did not warrant any

correction in this case, see United States v. Johnson, 574 F.3d 570, 573 (8th Cir. 2009)

(district court did not err where it acknowledged its power to vary from the Guidelines

to address powder/crack cocaine disparity and chose not to); and that the district court

did not err in imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice, based on its

findings that Mueller had attacked an inmate who could have testified against him at

sentencing, see U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 comment. (n.1) (adjustment applies if obstructive

conduct occurred with respect to investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of instant

offense); United States v. Thompson, 210 F.3d 855, 860-61 (8th Cir. 2000)

(obstruction enhancement based on fact-finding is reviewed for clear error; attempt

to intimidate or threaten witness is sufficient for enhancement).

We further hold that the district court did not err in denying Mueller’s motion

to suppress, as the evidence supported the court’s findings that there was probable

cause for the warrant to search Mueller’s residence and that the seizure of the

residence while waiting for the warrant was reasonable. See Illinois v. McArthur, 531

U.S. 326, 330-33 (2001) (factors for determining whether seizure pending warrant was

reasonable); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983) (probable-cause

determination); United States v. Clarke, 564 F.3d 949, 958 (8th Cir.) (standard of

review for denial of suppression motion), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 651 (2009).

As to the pro se arguments, we conclude that the district court’s drug-quantity

finding (1) did not violate Apprendi, as Mueller was sentenced within the applicable

statutory maximum, see 530 U.S. at 490; (2) was properly based on the

preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, as the court applied advisory Guidelines, see

Appellate Case: 09-1798 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/29/2010 Entry ID: 3649089
-4-

United States v. Hines, 472 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); and (3) was

amply supported by the testimony of co-conspirator Andrew Sullivan. We further

conclude that Mueller’s 380-month sentence neither violated the Eighth Amendment,

given the large quantity of cocaine base involved and Mueller’s criminal history, see

United States v. James, 564 F.3d 960, 964 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 433

(2009), nor constituted an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d

455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (listing factors that constitute abuse of discretion).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment

is affirmed, counsel is granted leave to withdraw, and Mueller’s motion for new

counsel is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1798 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/29/2010 Entry ID: 3649089