United States v. Robert John Jackaway

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Robert John Jackaway

6 F. App'x 521

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 30, 2001

Docket00-1712

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 F. App'x 521 (United States v. Robert John Jackaway) 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. Robert John Jackaway, 6 F. App'x 521 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert John Jackaway pleaded guilty to possessing pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, or having reasonable cause to believe that methamphetamine would be manufactured, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(d)(l)-(2) (1994 & Supp. IV 1998). On appeal, he challenges the District Court’s 1 drug-quantity finding.

While the parties agree that the District Court’s drug-quantity finding was premised on a typographical error in an addendum to the presentence report, we conclude that any error was harmless because Jackaway was properly classified as a career offender, and his career-offender status determined his base offense level regardless of drug quantity. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (holding that remand for misapplication of the Guidelines is only necessary “if the sentence would have been different but for the district court’s error”); United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781, 792 (8th Cir.1999) (finding that an erroneous five-level enhancement to a defendant’s offense level was harmless where it did not affect the *522 sentence), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029, 120 S.Ct. 1442, 146 L.Ed.2d 330 (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert John Jackaway pleaded guilty to possessing pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, or having reasonable cause to believe that methamphetamine would be manufactured, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(d)(l)-(2) (1994 & Supp. IV 1998). On appeal, he challenges the District Court’s 1 drug-quantity finding.

While the parties agree that the District Court’s drug-quantity finding was premised on a typographical error in an addendum to the presentence report, we conclude that any error was harmless because Jackaway was properly classified as a career offender, and his career-offender status determined his base offense level regardless of drug quantity. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (holding that remand for misapplication of the Guidelines is only necessary “if the sentence would have been different but for the district court’s error”); United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781, 792 (8th Cir.1999) (finding that an erroneous five-level enhancement to a defendant’s offense level was harmless where it did not affect the *522 sentence), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1029, 120 S.Ct. 1442, 146 L.Ed.2d 330 (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. App'x 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-john-jackaway-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack