United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1084

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lodgy Jackson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 14-1488

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Andreus O’Bryant

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeals from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________
 Submitted: January 15, 2015

 Filed: April 10, 2015

____________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Jamie Benson traveled from Houston, Texas, to St. Louis, Missouri, to sell a

half kilogram of cocaine to Andreus O’Bryant. In the early morning hours of April

22, 2011, Lodgy Jackson shot Benson in the back of the head, killing him.

Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and 846; conspiracy to

possess a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(o); and possession, brandishing, and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of

a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 924(j)(1). He

wassentenced to 400 months’ imprisonment. Jackson argues that his guilty plea was

not knowing and voluntary because the district court did not adequately advise him

1

of his rights. He also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

O’Bryant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and 846. He was

sentenced to 330 months’ imprisonment. O’Bryant argues that his sentence violates

the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; that the evidence was insufficient to support the

first-degree-murder sentencing enhancement; that at best, the evidence supported the

The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-
second-degree-murder sentencing enhancement; and that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. We affirm.

I. Background

The factual background set forth below is based on the evidence presented at

O’Bryant’s sentencing hearing. 

Jamie Benson was a drug dealer who sold marijuana and cocaine. He lived in

Houston with his roommate, Deallen Nettles. Benson and Nettles traveled to St.

Louisin March 2011 to sell one kilogram of cocaine. According to Nettles, O’Bryant

led them to a house in St. Louis, where the sale was supposed to take place, but they

were robbed instead. So ended Benson’s first St. Louis-based drug venture. 

In early April 2011, O’Bryant purchased plane tickets for Jackson and

Desmond Stringfellow to travel from Houston to St. Louis. Around that same time,

O’Bryant and Benson began discussing the sale of a half kilogram of cocaine. 

Stringfellow testified that he, O’Bryant, and Jackson agreed to steal the cocaine and

kill Benson. O’Bryant gave Stringfellow a .32 caliber firearm and gave Jackson a .40

caliber Glock.

In late April 2011, Benson persuaded Nettles to travel with himto the St. Louis

area to sell a half kilogram of cocaine. Benson told Nettles that things were going to

be different this time and that “[Benson] wouldn’t let anyone see the drugs until he

saw some money.” An older woman known as “Aunt Pat” accompanied Benson and

Nettles, and the three left on April 20, 2011, driving through the night and arriving

at an apartment complex in Washington, Missouri, on the afternoon of April 21, 2011. 

According to Nettles, they went to a second-floor apartment to meet O’Bryant,

Jackson, and Stringfellow. Shortly after they arrived, Scott Compton entered the

-3-
apartment and followed O’Bryant to a room in the back of the apartment. Compton

later exited the back room, spoke briefly to the group, and left the apartment. 

Compton testified that O’Bryant had asked him to come to the apartment, act as if he

were going to purchase the cocaine, and say, “[W]e don’t do business like that up

here in Missouri.” Compton went along with the plan. 

After Compton left, Benson,Nettles, and AuntPat followed O’Bryant, Jackson,

and Stringfellow to Compton’s house. Compton exited his house and entered

O’Bryant’s truck carrying a plastic bag, which Nettles believed held cash. Compton

testified that O’Bryant had instructed him to carry a plastic bag and that “[i]t was

supposed to look like it had money in it.” According to Nettles, O’Bryant told the

others that they would continue to another house to pick up the rest of the money

needed to complete the transaction. After driving for about an hour, they stopped in

a rural area. O’Bryant then supposedly took Compton to obtain the rest of the money,

leaving the others to wait in the dark, wooded area. 

Stringfellow and Compton testified that there was never going to be a drug

deal. Stringfellow explained that Compton played the role of a “fake buyer” so that

O’Bryant and the others could locate the cocaine, which—unbeknownst to

them—was hidden in the rear bumper of Nettles’s car. According to Stringfellow,

O’Bryant had given instructions to kill Benson and his companions once the cocaine

was located. Stringfellow was supposed to kill Nettles, and Jackson was supposed

to kill Benson and Aunt Pat. 

When O’Bryant and Compton returned to the location where the others were

waiting, O’Bryant indicated that the transaction could be completed. According to

Stringfellow, “[O’Bryant] told us to do it then, soon as he sees the cocaine, soon as

he bringsit out to kill them then.” Benson exited Nettles’s vehicle and moved toward

the rear bumper, but he did not retrieve the cocaine because a downpour interrupted

the transaction.

-4-
The occupants of the two vehicles then drove to a gas station. Out of the view

of O’Bryant, Jackson, and Stringfellow, Benson took the cocaine from its hiding

place and brought it inside Nettles’s car. Everyone then returned to the St. Louis

area. Compton went home, and the others reconvened at O’Bryant’s house. 

According to Nettles, O’Bryant said that Compton had called repeatedly and

indicated that he wanted to complete the transaction. O’Bryant, Jackson, and Benson

then left the house. Nettles, Aunt Pat, and Stringfellow went to a fast-food restaurant,

ordered food, and then returned to O’Bryant’s house. Nettles concealed the cocaine

in the fast-food bag and hid the bag in a couch. Stringfellow went upstairs and fell

asleep. 

Nettles recounted his final conversation with Benson. Nettles called Benson,

who said that O’Bryant and Jackson were going to “hit a lick,” meaning that they

were going to commit robbery to obtain the money needed to purchase the cocaine. 

Benson said that he had told the men that he did not want to be involved in any

robbery. Nettles offered to pick up Benson, who declined the offer and thereafter

ended the phone call. 

Nettles called Benson several times after that conversation. When the calls

went straight to voicemail, Nettles knew something was wrong. He and Aunt Pat

decided to leave O’Bryant’s house, taking with them the cocaine and a piece of mail

that bore O’Bryant’s full name and address. When Stringfellow awoke, Nettles and

Aunt Pat were gone. O’Bryant later returned. According to Stringfellow, O’Bryant

was furious when he discovered that the cocaine and Benson’s companions were

gone. 

According to Stringfellow, O’Bryant said, “I lost everything, Lodgy killed

him.” Stringfellow testified that he accompanied O’Bryant to the garage where

O’Bryant’s truck was parked. Stringfellow put on gloves, reached inside the truck,

and grabbed his return plane ticket. Stringfellow noticed that there was “[b]lood and

-5-
[a] bullet hole, bleach and a whole bunch of things in the car.” When asked what

Jackson had said about the incident, Stringfellow replied,

He told me that [O’Bryant] was inside the house and they were outside

in the alley and [O’Bryant] was playing like he was going to rob

[another drug dealer] so that [Benson] could get out of the car and they

wouldn’t have to kill him in the car, but that wasn’t working. [Jackson]

said he kept texting [O’Bryant], saying let me do it, let me do it now, can

I do it now and he wasn’t getting an answer. . . . [Jackson] said he killed

[Benson], he hit him from the backseat, [Jackson] and [another man]

drug him out of the car and [Jackson] took off. 

Stringfellow observed Jackson using a hammer in an attempt to destroy the .40

caliber Glock that was used to kill Benson. 

After Nettles sold the cocaine inChicago, he and Aunt Patreturned to Houston. 

Nettles called the police department in O’Fallon, Missouri, to report that Benson was

missing and provide information about O’Bryant. Nettles later learned that Benson

had been found dead in an alley.

A grand jury returned a six-count indictment against O’Bryant and Jackson,

charging themwith conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine (count one)

and conspiracy to possess a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime (count

two). It further charged Jackson with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drugtrafficking crime (count three) and O’Bryant with intimidating, threatening, and

corruptly persuading three individuals to make false statements to investigators and

the federal grand jury (counts four, five, and six). Jackson was arrested shortly after

the indictment was returned, but O’Bryant remained on the lam for eleven months

before being arrested in Houston.

-6-
II. Jackson’s Guilty Plea and Sentence

Jackson pleaded guilty to counts one, two, and three pursuant to a written plea

agreement. The government agreed to recommend a sentence of 360 months’

imprisonment. The plea agreement stated that the district court “alone will determine

whether to accept the [government’s] recommendation.” As set forth more fully

below, the district court explained to Jackson during the change-of-plea hearing that

it was not required to impose the recommended sentence and that Jackson could not

withdraw his guilty plea if the recommended sentence was not imposed. 

Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines), Jackson’s final

sentencing range was 480 months’ imprisonment to life. Jackson requested a 240- 2

month sentence. The government recommended a 360-month sentence. After

considering the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court

imposed a sentence of 400 months’ imprisonment: a 280-month sentence on count

one, a concurrent 240-month sentence on count two, and a consecutive 120-month

sentence on count three. 

A. Jackson’s Guilty Plea

Jackson argues that the district court failed to adequately advise him that he

could not withdraw his plea if the court decided to impose a sentence lengthier than

the one recommended by the government. Jackson entered a guilty plea pursuant to

Jackson’s total offense level for counts one and two was 40, his criminal 2

history category was III, and his sentencing range was 360 months’ to life

imprisonment. Count three—possession, brandishing, and discharge of a firearm in

furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime—carried a mandatory, consecutive sentence

of at least ten years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Jackson

admitted in his plea agreement and at his change-of-plea hearing that he had

discharged a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. 

-7-
Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 11(c)(3)(B)

required the district court to advise Jackson that he “ha[d] no right to withdraw the

plea if the court d[id] not follow the [government’s sentencing] recommendation.” 

At the change-of-plea hearing, the district court explained to Jackson that it did

not have to impose the recommended sentence. It confirmed thatJackson understood

“that the decision whether or not to accept that recommendation at sentencing would

be totally up to [the court].” The district court reiterated that “the mere fact that the

parties are recommending that doesn’t mean I’m going to go along with it.” 

Moreover, the district court explained that the Guidelines were advisory, that the

court was free to sentence Jackson above or below the Guidelines range, and that

Jackson might be considered an armed career criminal, which would mean a higher

total offense level and a higher criminal history category. Finally, the district court

explained:

Court: Now, do you understand, sir, that I don’t have to follow

any of the guidelines recommendations contained in this

plea agreement? 

Jackson: Yes.

Court: And do you understand, sir, that if I do not [follow] the

guideline agreements contained in this document, you’re

still going to be stuck with your plea and you’re not going

to be able to withdraw your plea just because I didn’t

follow the recommendations contained in this plea

agreement?

Jackson: Yes, ma’am.

The district court’s advice to Jackson that he could not withdraw his guilty plea even

if the court did not impose the sentence that the government recommended fulfilled

its Rule 11(c)(3)(B) obligations.

-8-
B. Jackson’s Sentence

Jackson argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the

district court failed to take into account the government’s recommended sentence and

the substantial assistance Jackson had provided. See United States v. Feemster, 572

F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“A district court abuses its discretion when

it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight

. . . .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The transcript makes clear that

the district court considered those factors when it decided to sentence Jackson below

the Guidelines range. In evaluating the totality of the circumstances, however, the

district court decided that the 360-month sentence recommended by the government

was too lenient. 

[W]hile I am willing to depart downward to give effect to the

Government’s agreement, I continue to struggle with the fact that at the

time of the defendant’s plea, I observed a level of acceptance of

responsibility that I have not seen since. And I think that there are still

significant issues . . . with respect to Mr. Jackson’s acceptance of

responsibility here, and realizing the impact of these actions, the [e]ffect

it has had on people’s lives and I frankly do not see remorse for anyone

other than Mr. Jackson. 

We hold that Jackson’s 400-month sentence is not substantively unreasonable and

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing it.

III. O’Bryant’s Guilty Plea and Sentence

O’Bryant pleaded guilty to count one pursuant to a written plea agreement. 

The parties agreed that O’Bryant was accountable for 510 grams of cocaine, but they

did not agree on his offense level. The government maintained that O’Bryant’s base

offense level should be 43 under Guidelines § 2D1.1 and its cross-reference to

-9-
§ 2A1.1, which provides the base offense level for first-degree murder. The

presentence investigation report (PSR) also recommended application of the crossreference. O’Bryant denied knowledge of any plan to murder Benson and argued that

the cross-reference should not apply. 

The district court held a two-day sentencing hearing, during which Nettles,

Stringfellow, and Compton testified. O’Bryant objected to Nettles’s testimony

regarding his final conversation with Benson. The government argued that it was not

eliciting the testimony for its truth, but rather to explain why Nettles decided to

contact the police and report Benson as missing. The district court overruled the

objection, explaining that the testimony would not be accepted as true and would not

be used to establish relevant conduct. The district court also overruled the hearsay

objection to Stringfellow’s testimony regarding what Jackson had said about killing

Benson, holding that it was not hearsay because it was a statement by a coconspirator

in furtherance of the conspiracy.

At the close of the evidence, the district court addressed the PSR and

O’Bryant’s objections to the Guidelines calculations. The district court rejected

O’Bryant’s arguments that the application of the cross-reference violated his Fifth

Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. It

also found that the government had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

the conspiracy involved the killing of Benson under circumstances that would

constitute first-degree murder:

[T]here is quite a substantial amount of evidence supporting a finding

that there was in fact a conspiracy involving the defendant[;] that the

defendant Mr. O’Bryant, was in fact the individual calling the shots on

this conspiracy; that he was the person directing how it happened and

when [it] happened except to the extent that events transpired that were

beyond his control, such as the sudden rainstorm and such as Mr.

Jackson killing Mr. Benson inside the car instead of outside the car. 

-10-
. . . .

I believe that the facts here well support a finding that this defendant

caused the killing of another human being, and did so in a premeditated

manner as part of a fairly elaborate, but at times misguided scheme. 

The district court thus applied the cross-reference to § 2A1.1 and determined that

O’Bryant’s base offense level was 43 “because this was a knowing, willful,

premeditated matter, a conspiracy to commit such a murder that continued and was

ongoing, and about which this defendant had never withdrawn.” The district court

granted O’Bryant a 3-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility and found that

O’Bryant’s total offense level was 40, his criminal history category was I, and his

sentencing range was 292 to 365 months’ imprisonment. After considering the

sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court sentenced

O’Bryant to 330 months’ imprisonment. 

A. Application of § 2A1.1 Cross-Reference 

O’Bryant argues that the district court should not have applied the first-degreemurder cross-reference set forth in § 2A1.1. We review the district court’s

interpretation and application of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for

clear error. United States v. Muckle, 755 F.3d 1024, 1025 (8th Cir. 2014).

Guidelines § 2D1.1 sets forth the base offense level for possessing with intent

to distribute cocaine and the specific offense characteristicsthat increase or decrease

the base offense level. Section 2D1.1(d) is entitled “Cross References” and instructs

the district court as follows:

(1) If a victim was killed under circumstances that would constitute

murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 had such killing taken place

within the territorial or maritime jurisdiction of the United States,

-11-
apply § 2A1.1 (First Degree Murder) or § 2A1.2 (Second Degree

Murder), as appropriate, if the resulting offense level is greater

than that determined under this guideline.

18 U.S.C. § 1111(a) defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being with

malice aforethought.” The statute providesthatfirst-degree murder includes “[e]very

murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate,

malicious, and premeditated killing.” Id. 

O’Bryant argues that the application of the § 2A1.1 first-degree-murder crossreference violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth

Amendment right to trial by jury. Specifically, he contends that the district court’s

application of the § 2A1.1 cross-reference sentenced him “for a murder he was never

charged with, a murder he denies being involved in, and a murder that was never

proven, to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.” O’Bryant acknowledges that our

precedent holds that a defendant’s constitutional rights are not violated when a

district court applies the first-degree-murder cross-reference set forth in § 2A1.1, see

United States v. Clay, 579 F.3d 919, 929-30 (8th Cir. 2009), but argues that the

Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), casts

doubt on our panel decision. Alleyne held that any fact that increases the mandatory

minimum sentence to which a defendant is exposed is an “element” of the crime and

must be submitted to the jury. Id. at 2155. 

Alleyne does not prevent the application of the § 2A1.1 cross-reference in this

case. We addressed this precise issue in United States v. Davis, 753 F.3d 1361 (8th

Cir. 2014) (per curiam), a decision issued after this appeal was filed. In Davis, the

district court applied the § 2A1.1 cross-reference and sentenced the defendant to the

statutorymaximumtermof imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm. 

We rejected the defendant’s argument that the district court violated Alleyne by

applying the § 2A1.1 cross-reference without having a jury act as the fact-finder. 

-12-
Application of the § 2A1.1 cross-reference neither increases the penalty

beyond the statutory maximum, see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466, 490 (2000), nor increases the mandatory minimum, see Alleyne,

133 S. Ct. at 2155. Regarding whether a jury is required, application of

a statutory maximum or minimum [is] to be distinguished from

“factfinding used to guide judicial discretion in selecting punishment

within limits fixed by law. While such findings of facts may lead judges

to select sentences that are more severe than the ones they would have

selected without those facts, the Sixth Amendment does not govern the

element of sentencing.” 

Davis, 753 F.3d at 1361-62 (quoting Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2161 n.2 (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)). Davis thus forecloses O’Bryant’s Alleyne

argument. 

3

O’Bryant next argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the

application of § 2A1.1. O’Bryant argued at sentencing and continues to argue on

appeal that any conspiracy to kill Benson and steal his cocaine ended in the woods,

when the downpour interrupted the ruse drug deal, and that Jackson later acted alone

and without premeditation when he shot Benson. O’Bryant also contends that

Stringfellow’s testimony should have been excluded as incredible. Stringfellow was

involved only in the conspiracy that ended with the downpour and not in any later

conspiracy, O’Bryant argues, and his testimony regarding the statementsthatJackson

allegedly had made were not in furtherance of the first conspiracy. 

O’Bryant argues in passing that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to 3

confront witnesses when the district court admitted Nettles’s testimony regarding his

last conversation with Benson and Stringfellow’s testimony regarding what Jackson

said. Assuming, arguendo, that the testimony was hearsay, the district court did not

err in admitting it. “We have held that the admission of hearsay during sentencing

proceedings does not violate a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.” 

United States v. Pepper, 747 F.3d 520, 525 n.4 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing United States

v. Brown, 430 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir. 2005)). 

-13-
The district court did not clearly err in finding that the conspiracy continued

after the rain-interrupted ruse drug deal and that it included the killing of Benson. 

Moreover, the district court found the witnesses credible, observing that it “had the

opportunity to observe these witnesses, to observe their demeanor, to carefully

attempt to assess the degree to which their testimony was corroborated by other

testimony.” We have no basis upon which to question the district court’s credibility

determination. See United States v. Battle, 774 F.3d 504, 517 (8th Cir. 2014) 

(“Credibility determinations are squarelywithin the discretion ofthe district court and

are given special deference.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). We

conclude that a preponderance of the evidence supported its finding that Benson’s

murder was willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated. Accordingly, we hold

that the district court did not err in applying § 2A1.1.4

B. O’Bryant’s Sentence 

O’Bryant contendsthat his 330-month sentence issubstantively unreasonable. 

He continues to argue that the first-degree-murder cross-reference should not have

applied, that he was not involved in any conspiracy to kill Benson, that Benson’s

murder was not premeditated, and that the witnesses who testified at the sentencing

hearing were unreliable. The district court considered the arguments O’Bryant now

advances on appeal, and we have addressed them above. Our review of the record

satisfies us that this is not the “unusual case when we reverse a district court

sentence—whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range—as

substantively unreasonable.” Feemster, 572 F.3d at 464 (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted). 

Having decided that the evidence was sufficient to support application of

4

§ 2A1.1, we reject O’Bryant’s argument that—at most—the evidence supported the

cross-reference to § 2A1.2, second-degree murder. 

-14-
IV. Conclusion

We affirm the judgment in all respects. We dismiss as moot the government’s

motion to dismiss Jackson’s appeal.

______________________________

-15-