United States v. Joseph Hill

912 F.3d 1135
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 10, 2019
Docket17-2425
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 912 F.3d 1135 (United States v. Joseph Hill) 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. Joseph Hill, 912 F.3d 1135 (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Hill pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of ammunition as a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). The district court 1 determined that Hill qualified as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(1), because he had sustained three prior convictions for "a serious drug offense" within the meaning of § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). The court therefore sentenced him to the statutory minimum term of fifteen years' imprisonment. Hill argues on appeal that his prior convictions under Missouri law do not qualify as serious drug offenses, so he is not an armed career criminal, and that the maximum punishment for his offense is therefore only ten years' imprisonment. See id. § 924(a)(2).

In concluding that Hill was an armed career criminal, the district court cited four prior convictions under Missouri Revised Statutes § 195.211.1 (1989), which criminalized the distribution, delivery, manufacture, or production of a controlled substance. "Delivery" includes both the sale of a controlled substance and the "offer therefor." See Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 195.010 (8) and 195.010(36) (1997). Hill observes that the definition of "serious drug offense" under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) requires an offense under state law "involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute" a controlled substance. He argues that a state crime involving merely an offer to sell drugs does not qualify.

Hill's argument is foreclosed by the reasoning of United States v. Bynum , 669 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2012). There, we held that a knowing offer to sell drugs in Minnesota is a crime "involving" the distribution of drugs, because it is "related to or connected with" drug distribution. Id . at 886 (quoting United States v. Vickers , 540 F.3d 356 , 365 (5th Cir. 2008) ). United States v. Wadena , 895 F.3d 1075 (8th Cir. 2018), reiterated that an offer to sell drugs is a serious drug offense under the Act. Id . at 1077. For the same reasons, the district court properly counted Hill's convictions under a Missouri statute that forbade an offer to sell controlled substances. With three prior convictions for a serious drug offense, Hill qualified as an armed career criminal and was subject to the mandatory minimum term of fifteen years' imprisonment.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Related

Strickland v. United States
E.D. Missouri, 2022
Wade v. United States
E.D. Missouri, 2021
Harris v. United States
E.D. Missouri, 2020
United States v. Shane Jones
934 F.3d 842 (Eighth Circuit, 2019)
United States v. Terreall McDaniel
925 F.3d 381 (Eighth Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
912 F.3d 1135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joseph-hill-ca8-2019.