United States v. Rafiel Owens
This text of United States v. Rafiel Owens (United States v. Rafiel Owens) 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.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 21-3898 ___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Rafiel Lee Owens
Defendant - Appellant ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________
Submitted: December 12, 2022 Filed: February 21, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM
Rafiel Owens received a 212-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm crimes. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846; 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Although he challenges a two-level “stash-house” enhancement and the reasonableness of the sentence, we affirm. First, the record supports the finding that Owens “maintained” two motel rooms and a duplex “for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12); see United States v. Hernandez Lopez, 24 F.4th 1205, 1208 (8th Cir. 2022) (reviewing whether the defendant’s home qualified as a stash house for clear error). Informants purchased heroin from him at the motel rooms, making drug dealing one of the “primary or princip[al]” ways he “use[d]” them. Hernandez Lopez, 24 F.4th at 1208 (citation omitted); see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17. The same goes for the duplex, where a search uncovered methamphetamine, scales, and cutting agents. See United States v. Milliner, 765 F.3d 836, 840–41 (8th Cir. 2014). The fact that Owens also lived there does not change our conclusion. See United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699, 706–07 (8th Cir. 2012).
Second, the overall sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Sherrod, 966 F.3d 748, 754–55 (8th Cir. 2020). Indeed, Owens sold drugs that killed two people, which led the court to vary upward from the recommended range of 151 to 188 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) (noting that a sentence should “reflect the seriousness of the offense”). And although Owens believes he should have received a downward variance, the court was under no obligation to grant one. See United States v. Noriega, 35 F.4th 643, 652 (8th Cir. 2022).
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Rafiel Owens, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rafiel-owens-ca8-2023.