United States v. Ramon Pacheco

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 5, 2023
Docket22-3108
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Ramon Pacheco (United States v. Ramon Pacheco) 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. Ramon Pacheco, (8th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-3108 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ramon Diego Pacheco

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: April 26, 2023 Filed: May 5, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Ramon Pacheco received a 198-month prison sentence after a jury found him guilty of conspiring to distribute at least 50 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846. He asks us to vacate his conviction and sentence because the jury should not have been told about a prior drug conviction, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and the district court1 miscalculated how much actual methamphetamine he distributed.

We conclude there was no abuse of discretion in admitting the prior conviction or denying a new trial. See United States v. Monds, 945 F.3d 1049, 1052 (8th Cir. 2019) (explaining that prior drug convictions can show “knowledge” and “intent”); United States v. Clayton, 787 F.3d 929, 935 (8th Cir. 2015) (emphasizing that the jury’s verdict should “stand unless the evidence weighs heavily enough against [it] . . . that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred” (quotation marks omitted)). Nor did the district court clearly err in calculating the drug quantity. See United States v. Madison, 863 F.3d 1001, 1006 (8th Cir. 2017) (describing the “well- established” procedure for determining the purity of unrecovered methamphetamine). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-

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

Related

United States v. Johnny Madison
863 F.3d 1001 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)
United States v. Samory Monds
945 F.3d 1049 (Eighth Circuit, 2019)
United States v. Clayton
787 F.3d 929 (Eighth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Ramon Pacheco, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ramon-pacheco-ca8-2023.