Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01712/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01712-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theresa Flieger
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1712

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Theresa Flieger, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 22, 2010

Filed: February 4, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Theresa Flieger appeals the district court’s1

 judgment, entered upon a jury

verdict finding her guilty of possession of pseudoephedrine, knowing it would be used

to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2). She was

sentenced at the bottom of the calculated advisory Guidelines range to 151 months in

prison and two years of supervised release. On appeal, Flieger’s counsel has filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of

the evidence to support the jury’s verdict and the district court’s application of an

Appellate Case: 09-1712 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631176
-2-

obstruction-of-justice sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.

Upon careful review, see United States v. Coleman, 584 F.3d 1121, 1125 (8th

Cir. 2009) (denial of motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo, and

evidence is viewed in light most favorable to verdict, giving verdict benefit of all

reasonable inferences; reviewing court does not weigh evidence or assess witness

credibility, and reverses only if no reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty

beyond reasonable doubt), we find that the government’s evidence was sufficient. In

particular, the evidence at trial included the testimony of witnesses who observed

Flieger give boxes of pseudoephedrine pills to a methamphetamine manufacturer in

exchange for methamphetamine, and use methamphetamine. See United States v.

Hudspeth, 525 F.3d 667, 677 (8th Cir. 2008) (to convict under § 841(c), government

must prove defendant possessed or distributed pseudoephedrine “knowing, or having

reasonable cause to believe, that . . . [it] will be used to manufacture a controlled

substance”); see also United States v. Khattab, 536 F.3d 765, 769-70 (7th Cir. 2008)

(affirming § 841(c)(2) conviction where evidence supported conclusion that defendant

knew pseudoephedrine he attempted to purchase would be used to manufacture

methamphetamine).

In addition, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that

Flieger had given intentionally false testimony at trial in an effort to mislead the jury.

While Flieger testified that she had merely consumed the pseudoephedrine pills she

purchased over the years in question and had not used methamphetamine during this

time, others testified as to their observations to the contrary. Thus, we hold that the

district court did not err in applying the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. See

United States v. Boesen, 541 F.3d 838, 851-52 (8th Cir. 2008) (reviewing district

court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of advisory Guidelines de

novo; affirming imposition of § 3C1.1 enhancement where district court found by

preponderance of evidence that defendant willfully gave false testimony concerning

Appellate Case: 09-1712 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631176
-3-

material matter, rather than as result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory); United

States v. Titlbach, 300 F.3d 919, 924 (8th Cir. 2002) (affirming imposition of § 3C1.1

enhancement where defendant’s testimony that he had not participated in

methamphetamine manufacturing conflicted with other witnesses’ testimony); United

States v. Simms, 285 F.3d 1098, 1101-02 (8th Cir. 2002) (although § 3C1.1 is not

intended to punish defendant for testifying, defendant who commits perjury is subject

to enhancement).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1712 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631176