United States v. David A. Gelinas

Eighth Circuit

United States v. David A. Gelinas

299 F.3d 978, 15 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 749, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17159, 2002 WL 1900785

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 20, 2002

Docket01-2704

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 299 F.3d 978 (United States v. David A. Gelinas) 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. David A. Gelinas, 299 F.3d 978, 15 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 749, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17159, 2002 WL 1900785 (8th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinions

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

David Gelinas was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute 1000 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The district court¹ sentenced him to concurrent sentences of 240 months on both counts. He appeals his sentence and asks us to consider whether the district court erred in finding that he should receive a three-level enhancement for being a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity involving five or more people, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b). We affirm the district court’s application of the enhancement.

Additionally, the appellant filed a supplemental brief pro se, and raised the following issues: 1) whether the sentence imposed violated the principles set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); 2) whether his convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering constitute double jeopardy; 3) whether the court improperly instructed the jury as to the elements of money laundering; and 4) whether there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the charged offenses. After careful review of his brief and the government’s response, we find those issues to be without merit.

Gelinas was involved in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and engage in money laundering between 1995 and 1998. The uncontested evidence shows there were at least eight others involved in the conspiracy. Appellant arranged the flow of methamphetamine from California to Iowa; recruited and utilized others to wire money from Iowa to California to pay for the methamphetamine; recruited and utilized others to supply, transport, and ship the drugs; recruited and utilized others to pick up the money that had been wired to California; and gave others instructions to avoid detection. Gelinas acted as a conduit for the drugs and money passing between members of the conspiracy in California and Iowa.

Appellant contests the court’s imposition of a three-level enhancement for a supervisory or managerial role. He argues there was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s factual finding regarding his supervisory role in the conspiracy, and seeks a remand for resentencing. This court reviews the district court’s determination of Gelinas’s role in the offense as a factual matter, and applies a clearly erroneous standard of review. United States v. Cooper, 168 F.3d 336, 339 (8th Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Brown, 156 F.3d 813, 817 (8th Cir.1998)); United States v. McFarlane, 64 F.3d 1235, 1236 (8th Cir.1995). The interpretation and applicability of the Guidelines is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. McFarlane, 64 F.3d at 1236.

Section 3B1.1 of the guidelines states in relevant part, “[bjased on the defendant’s role in the offense, increase the offense level as follows: .... (b) If the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by three levels.” Gelinas’s role in the conspiracy was not limited to his re[980]*980cruiting efforts. He solicited others to assist in financing the sale and distribution of the drugs; explained to transporters how to carry the methamphetamine on their bodies; asked others to buy hand cleaner for him to use in packing the methamphetamine for shipment; encouraged co-conspirators to use false names and addresses when wiring money; and asked others to obtain ingredients to make methamphetamine. Because Gelinas has not shown that the enhancement for his supervisory or managerial role in the offense was clearly erroneous, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

David Gelinas was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute 1000 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The district court¹ sentenced him to concurrent sentences of 240 months on both counts. He appeals his sentence and asks us to consider whether the district court erred in finding that he should receive a three-level enhancement for being a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity involving five or more people, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b). We affirm the district court’s application of the enhancement.

Additionally, the appellant filed a supplemental brief pro se, and raised the following issues: 1) whether the sentence imposed violated the principles set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); 2) whether his convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering constitute double jeopardy; 3) whether the court improperly instructed the jury as to the elements of money laundering; and 4) whether there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the charged offenses. After careful review of his brief and the government’s response, we find those issues to be without merit.

Gelinas was involved in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and engage in money laundering between 1995 and 1998. The uncontested evidence shows there were at least eight others involved in the conspiracy. Appellant arranged the flow of methamphetamine from California to Iowa; recruited and utilized others to wire money from Iowa to California to pay for the methamphetamine; recruited and utilized others to supply, transport, and ship the drugs; recruited and utilized others to pick up the money that had been wired to California; and gave others instructions to avoid detection. Gelinas acted as a conduit for the drugs and money passing between members of the conspiracy in California and Iowa.

Appellant contests the court’s imposition of a three-level enhancement for a supervisory or managerial role. He argues there was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s factual finding regarding his supervisory role in the conspiracy, and seeks a remand for resentencing. This court reviews the district court’s determination of Gelinas’s role in the offense as a factual matter, and applies a clearly erroneous standard of review. United States v. Cooper, 168 F.3d 336, 339 (8th Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Brown, 156 F.3d 813, 817 (8th Cir.1998)); United States v. McFarlane, 64 F.3d 1235, 1236 (8th Cir.1995). The interpretation and applicability of the Guidelines is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. McFarlane, 64 F.3d at 1236.

Section 3B1.1 of the guidelines states in relevant part, “[bjased on the defendant’s role in the offense, increase the offense level as follows: .... (b) If the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by three levels.” Gelinas’s role in the conspiracy was not limited to his re[980]*980cruiting efforts. He solicited others to assist in financing the sale and distribution of the drugs; explained to transporters how to carry the methamphetamine on their bodies; asked others to buy hand cleaner for him to use in packing the methamphetamine for shipment; encouraged co-conspirators to use false names and addresses when wiring money; and asked others to obtain ingredients to make methamphetamine. Because Gelinas has not shown that the enhancement for his supervisory or managerial role in the offense was clearly erroneous, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 F.3d 978, 15 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 749, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17159, 2002 WL 1900785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-a-gelinas-ca8-2002.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack