United States v. Vicki Lou Hammer

940 F.2d 1141, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16510, 1991 WL 134077
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 23, 1991
Docket90-5270
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 940 F.2d 1141 (United States v. Vicki Lou Hammer) 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. Vicki Lou Hammer, 940 F.2d 1141, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16510, 1991 WL 134077 (8th Cir. 1991).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Vicki Lou Hammer appeals from her conviction and 188-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine from 1984 to May 18, 1989, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1988). Hammer was an important participant in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine in the Twin Cities headed by Ralph “Plukey” Duke. Five co-conspirators who made deals with the government testified at her trial (which was separate from that of several of the conspirators, including Duke, who were tried together) that she made many cross-country trips transporting cocaine by car, allowed her house in St. Paul to be used as a storage place and distribution center for drugs, and personally organized transactions and made deliveries. Despite this testimony, Hammer argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. She claims, incredibly, that she never knew Duke was involved with drugs and that her seeming acts of participation were merely instances of her innocent association with drug dealers. In addition, Hammer argues that the district court misapplied the relevant-conduct provision of the sentencing guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a). She argues that the evidence does not prove that she conspired to possess the particular amounts used by the district court in calculating her base offense level. Our review of the record, however, convinces us otherwise. To this extent, Hammer’s argument merely restates her sufficiency argument. Because we find no error, our recitation of the strong evidence against Hammer would have no precedential value. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

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

Related

Mylan v. Zydus
Vermont Superior Court, 2013
United States v. James Larry Deitz
991 F.2d 443 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Vicki Lou Hammer
940 F.2d 1141 (Eighth Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
940 F.2d 1141, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16510, 1991 WL 134077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-vicki-lou-hammer-ca8-1991.