Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03076/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03076-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wade LaSalle Beck
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-3076

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Wade LaSalle Beck, also known

as Charles Dorsey,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeals from the United States

District Court for the 

District of Nebraska.

________________

 Submitted: June 15, 2007

 Filed: August 3, 2007

________________

Before MELLOY, SMITH and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

________________

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

Wade LaSalle Beck (“Beck”) appeals from a conviction for bank robbery in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 and a 210-month sentence imposed by the district

court.1

Appellate Case: 06-3076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2007 Entry ID: 3336897
-2-

On August 17, 2005, a man carrying a cardboard box and a briefcase entered

the Commercial Federal Bank in Omaha and approached a teller window. He handed

the teller, Catherine Workman, a note that read, “I have a bomb.” The note was

handwritten on what police later identified as a Qwest Communications promotional

leaflet. The man told Workman, “Give me all your money,” and Workman handed

him some of the money in the drawer. The man then said, “No, I want all of it.”

Workman gave the man all of the money in the drawer, totaling $2,899.00, including

ten marked bills. The robber left the bank, leaving the demand note behind. 

Immediately after the robbery, Workman provided the police with a detailed

description of the bank robber. When police presented Workman with a photo lineup

that did not include a picture of Beck, she identified someone other than Beck as the

bank robber. At trial, when questioned why she chose that picture, Workman testified

that she thought she had to choose one of the pictures, so she did. However, she

identified Beck in the courtroom as the bank robber.

At trial, the Government presented fingerprint evidence that matched Beck’s

fingerprints to those taken from the robber’s demand note. Although fingerprints also

had been obtained from the bank door, they were not compared with Beck’s prints.

The Government also offered testimony from three of Beck’s friends and relatives,

each of whom independently had identified Beck from bank surveillance video and

photographs televised after the robbery.

In addition, the Government introduced evidence obtained from Beck’s vehicle

at the time of his arrest, including a black briefcase that held $14,890, fliers from

Qwest similar to that on which the demand note had been written, and a notebook that

contained a handwritten reference to the Commercial Federal Bank in Omaha. An

FBI agent testified that he questioned Beck about the robbery and Beck responded that

he did not “recall” robbing a bank in Omaha. The defense offered no evidence, and

the jury returned a guilty verdict. 

Appellate Case: 06-3076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2007 Entry ID: 3336897
2

Section 4B1.1(a) states:

A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen

years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of

conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either

a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the

defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of

violence or a controlled substance offense.

-3-

At sentencing, the FBI agent testified that Beck admitted to several prior arrests

and convictions, including convictions for rape, auto theft, and possession of heroin

with intent to distribute. The Government presented the district court with certified

copies of these and several other prior convictions, along with documents regarding

a petition to revoke probation that had been found in Beck’s vehicle. Accordingly, the

district court classified Beck as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1,2

 overruling

Beck’s objection to the presentence investigation report (“PSR”), and calculated an

advisory sentencing guidelines range of 210 to 240 months. Beck requested a

departure from the sentencing guidelines on the basis that two of his prior convictions

were for only small quantities of controlled substances, but the court declined to

depart and sentenced Beck to 210 months’ imprisonment. Beck filed the instant

appeal. For the following reasons, we now affirm.

Beck challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the Government

lacks fingerprint evidence directly linking Beck to the scene of the robbery and that

the primary eyewitness, Workman, failed to describe Beck’s prominent gold tooth and

later identified someone other than Beck in a photo lineup. We review the sufficiency

of the evidence supporting a conviction in the light most favorable to the Government

and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v.

Espino, 317 F.3d 788, 792 (8th Cir. 2003). The standard of review is “very strict,” id.

at 791, and we will reverse the conviction only if we conclude that no reasonable jury

could have found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, United States v.

Hollins, 432 F.3d 809, 811 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Appellate Case: 06-3076 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/03/2007 Entry ID: 3336897
-4-

We find the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt beyond

a reasonable doubt. The Government produced fingerprint evidence that matched

Beck’s fingerprints to the demand note used in the robbery. Three of Beck’s friends

and relatives, all of whom had known Beck for at least six years, recognized him as

the bank robber in televised broadcasts of surveillance photos from the robbery, and

Workman identified Beck as the bank robber in court. At his arrest, police discovered

a substantial amount of cash, as well as Qwest flyers similar to that on which the

demand note was written and a notebook referencing the Commercial Federal Bank

in Omaha. Furthermore, when questioned about the robbery, Beck neither denied the

charges nor offered an alibi, but rather he responded that he could not “recall” robbing

a bank. In light of all this evidence, a reasonable jury could find Beck guilty beyond

a reasonable doubt. See Hollins, 432 F.3d at 811-12 (finding the evidence sufficient

where three witnesses identified the defendant, who fit the physical characteristics of

the suspect as determined from surveillance video and possessed boots matching those

worn during the robbery).

Beck also challenges the 210-month sentence imposed by the district court,

alleging that it is inconsistent with the sentencing goals listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

because his prior narcotics convictions involved the sale of only small quantities for

which he received minimal sentences. Beck does not challenge directly his

classification as a career offender or the district court’s calculation of his advisory

sentencing guidelines range. Thus, we review his sentence for reasonableness, akin

to review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Medearis, 451 F.3d 918, 920

(8th Cir. 2006). 

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced

Beck at the low end of the properly calculated advisory guidelines range to 210

months in prison. Because the sentencing guidelines were developed after years of

careful study and account for other § 3553(a) factors, sentences within the sentencing

guidelines are presumptively reasonable. United States v. Vasquez, 433 F.3d 666, 670

Appellate Case: 06-3076 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/03/2007 Entry ID: 3336897
-5-

(8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,---U.S.---, 127 S. Ct. 3041 (2007); see also Rita v. United

States,---U.S.---,127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). However,

a sentence within an advisory guidelines range may be unreasonable if

the sentencing court: (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should

have received significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an

improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate

factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.

Vasquez, 433 F.3d at 671.

The record does not suggest that the district court ignored or improperly

weighed the nature of Beck’s prior convictions when imposing Beck’s sentence.

Although Beck argues that the quantities of narcotics in his several previous narcotics

convictions were “small,” these quantities were sufficient to support the convictions.

In addition, Beck’s drug quantity argument does not address his auto theft and rape

convictions. See United States v. Walker, ---F.3d---, No. 06-3137, slip op. at 7 (8th

Cir. Jul. 20, 2007) (stating that auto theft constitutes a crime of violence for purposes

of determining career offender status); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1 (“‘Crime of

violence’ includes . . . forcible sex offenses . . .” ). Therefore, we find that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a within-guidelines sentence. 

Accordingly, we affirm Beck’s conviction and sentence. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3076 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/03/2007 Entry ID: 3336897