Court Opinion

ID: 9394459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 15:02:55.532411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:59.254325
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-1671
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                              Curtis James Johnson

                                   Defendant - Appellant
                                 ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
                                  ____________

                          Submitted: February 13, 2023
                             Filed: May 15, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, STRAS and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                              ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Curtis Johnson received a 348-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty
to drug and firearm crimes. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1). Although he is unhappy about the length of the sentence, we affirm.
       One reason why Johnson’s sentence was so long was his post-arrest conduct.
The district court 1 gave him a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement after he
asked his mother to bribe his sister-in-law, who was set to testify against him at trial.
See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. He claims that the conversation with her on a recorded
jailhouse line just “expressed a hope or aspiration” that she would refuse to testify
on her own. But then why bring up money and direct his mother to “get on it”?
Johnson’s request was a textbook example of “attempting” to “unlawfully
influenc[e] a . . . witness.” Id. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(A). When he later tried to mislead
the court about the nature of the call, it had every reason to deny an acceptance-of-
responsibility reduction too. See United States v. Tyndall, 521 F.3d 877, 883 (8th
Cir. 2008) (explaining that “[i]t is rarely appropriate to grant” this reduction after
imposing an obstruction-of-justice enhancement).

       Johnson also makes two arguments based on his plea agreement, but neither
gets him far. First, he argues that the district court made a mistake by using a
stipulation on drug quantity to calculate his base offense level, but he agreed to it
and cannot take it back on appeal. See United States v. Hawkins, 215 F.3d 858, 860
(8th Cir. 2000) (explaining that, “by agreeing to the stipulation, [the defendant]
waived any right to argue error on appeal”). Second, to the extent he claims the
government had no contractual right to seek an enhancement, the agreement says
otherwise. See United States v. Kramer, 12 F.3d 130, 131 (8th Cir. 1993) (“[I]n
determining whether the government has fulfilled its obligations under a plea
agreement, we look to the agreement’s provisions.”).

      We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.2
                     ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
      2
          We also grant Johnson’s motion to file a supplemental pro se brief.
                                         -2-