United States v. Curtis Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: May 15, 2023
• Docket: 22-1671
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Submitted: February 13, 2023 Filed: May 15, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________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