United States v. Bradley J. Ragan

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Bradley J. Ragan

952 F.2d 1049, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 41, 1992 WL 298

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 3, 1992

Docket91-2098

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 952 F.2d 1049 (United States v. Bradley J. Ragan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bradley J. Ragan, 952 F.2d 1049, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 41, 1992 WL 298 (8th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The government filed this appeal challenging the decision of the District Court 1 to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines range when sentencing Bradley J. Ragan, who had pled guilty to three counts of distributing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C) (1988). The District Court granted the downward departure because Ragan had stopped using drugs for over a year before his indictment and had maintained steady employment during that time. Further, the court noted that Ragan had been willing to provide substantial assistance to the government but, because he was not indicted until over a year after he committed the offenses, his information was no longer timely.

At the sentencing hearing, the government failed to object to the District Court’s decision to grant a downward departure. Accordingly, the government has waived this issue, and may not raise it before this Court unless it can demonstrate that the downward departure was “plain error resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Carnes, 945 F.2d 1013, 1014 (8th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Houston, 892 F.2d 696, 707 (8th Cir.1989) (“The government could have articulated a clear objection at any point during these [sentencing] proceedings and preserved this argument for appeal. [It] did not do so, and thus, arguments raised for the first time on appeal shall not be considered.”); United States v. Garciar-Pillado, 898 F.2d 36, 39-40 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Prichett, 898 F.2d 130, 131 (11th Cir.1990). Here, the downward departure from the sentencing range, even if erroneous (a question we do not decide), did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and therefore was *1050 not plain error. The sentence imposed by the District Court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The government filed this appeal challenging the decision of the District Court 1 to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines range when sentencing Bradley J. Ragan, who had pled guilty to three counts of distributing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C) (1988). The District Court granted the downward departure because Ragan had stopped using drugs for over a year before his indictment and had maintained steady employment during that time. Further, the court noted that Ragan had been willing to provide substantial assistance to the government but, because he was not indicted until over a year after he committed the offenses, his information was no longer timely.

At the sentencing hearing, the government failed to object to the District Court’s decision to grant a downward departure. Accordingly, the government has waived this issue, and may not raise it before this Court unless it can demonstrate that the downward departure was “plain error resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Carnes, 945 F.2d 1013, 1014 (8th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Houston, 892 F.2d 696, 707 (8th Cir.1989) (“The government could have articulated a clear objection at any point during these [sentencing] proceedings and preserved this argument for appeal. [It] did not do so, and thus, arguments raised for the first time on appeal shall not be considered.”); United States v. Garciar-Pillado, 898 F.2d 36, 39-40 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Prichett, 898 F.2d 130, 131 (11th Cir.1990). Here, the downward departure from the sentencing range, even if erroneous (a question we do not decide), did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and therefore was *1050 not plain error. The sentence imposed by the District Court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

952 F.2d 1049, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 41, 1992 WL 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bradley-j-ragan-ca8-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack