Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04076/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04076-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas A. Bridge
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-4076

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Thomas A. Bridge, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2004

Filed: July 28, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas A. Bridge appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500

grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We affirm.

At sentencing, the district court assigned 1 criminal history point to each of

Bridge’s two prior convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia, raising his point

total to 4 and placing him in criminal history Category III. Bridge argues that the

Appellate Case: 03-4076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2004 Entry ID: 1793060 
-2-

court clearly erred in assessing these criminal history points because the offense is

similar to those listed in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c). We, however, have recently

determined that possession of drug paraphernalia is not similar to the category of

offenses listed as excepted in section 4A1.2(c)(1). See United States v. Hatch, 94

Fed. Appx. 427, 429 (8th Cir. 2004) (unpublished per curiam); see also United States

v. Moore, 245 F.3d 1023, 1025 (8th Cir. 2001). And we now conclude that it is not

similar to the category of offenses listed in section 4A1.2(c)(2), because (1)

possession of drug paraphernalia is an offense of prohibitions, cf. United States v.

Webb, 218 F.3d 877, 881 (8th Cir. 2000) (conviction for being minor in possession

of alcohol represented violation of specific liquor control law, rather than being

merely reflective of status crime, and as “offense of prohibitions,” it did not belong

to category of offenses listed in section 4A1.2(c)(2)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1131

(2001); and (2) under Nebraska law, this offense requires proof of criminal intent, see

Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-441 (Michie 2003) (“unlawful for any person to use, or to

possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to manufacture, inject, ingest, inhale,

or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance” (emphasis

added)); cf. United States v. Sandoval, 152 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir.1998) (“Unlike

the offenses listed in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(2), petty theft requires proof of criminal

intent.”), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1086 (1999).

We also reject Bridge’s argument that, because these were uncounseled

convictions, the district court erred in assigning criminal history points. Cf. U.S.S.G.

§ 4A1.2 comment. (background) (“Prior sentences, not otherwise excluded, are to be

counted in the criminal history score, including uncounseled misdemeanor sentences

where imprisonment was not imposed.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-4076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2004 Entry ID: 1793060