United States v. William Marshall

Eighth Circuit

United States v. William Marshall

459 F. App'x 575

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2012

Docket11-2429

StatusUnpublished

This text of 459 F. App'x 575 (United States v. William Marshall) 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. William Marshall, 459 F. App'x 575 (8th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Marshall appeals from the refusal of the district court 1 to reduce his sentence because of his minimal or minor role in a conspiracy to use an interstate facility to facilitate prostitution. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2; 18 U.S.C §§ 1952(a)(3)(A), 371. We will uphold the district court’s determination unless it is not supported by substantial evidence or resulted from an error of law. United States v. Weems, 517 F.3d 1027, 1031 (8th Cir.2008).

A defendant bears the burden of showing that he or she is entitled to the reduction for a minimal or minor role. United States v. Bustos-Torres, 396 F.3d 935, 947-48 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1109, 125 S.Ct. 2557, 162 L.Ed.2d 284 (2005) & 546 U.S. 879, 126 S.Ct. 203, 163 L.Ed.2d 179 (2005), and a reduction is available only if a defendant is “substantially less culpable than the average participant,” U.S.S.G. 3B1.2, comment, (n. 3(A)). In this case, Mr. Marshall, over a considerable period of time and with full knowledge of the prostitution ring in which he was participating, recruited and took applications from women, drove them to and from their assignations, instructed them on how to perform their services, collected and deposited money earned from their actions, and knew and communicated with the principals in the operation. As the district judge noted, Mr. Marshall was involved in virtually all of the necessary work of the enterprise. While he might not have been as culpable as the owner of the enterprise, “merely showing that the defendant was less culpable than other participants is not enough to entitle the defendant to [a minor-role] adjustment if the defendant was deeply involved in the offense.” United States v. Adamson, 608 F.3d 1049, 1054 (8th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Because substantial evidence supported the district court’s determination and it committed no legal error, we affirm the judgment.

1

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

William Marshall appeals from the refusal of the district court 1 to reduce his sentence because of his minimal or minor role in a conspiracy to use an interstate facility to facilitate prostitution. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2; 18 U.S.C §§ 1952(a)(3)(A), 371. We will uphold the district court’s determination unless it is not supported by substantial evidence or resulted from an error of law. United States v. Weems, 517 F.3d 1027, 1031 (8th Cir.2008).

A defendant bears the burden of showing that he or she is entitled to the reduction for a minimal or minor role. United States v. Bustos-Torres, 396 F.3d 935, 947-48 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1109, 125 S.Ct. 2557, 162 L.Ed.2d 284 (2005) & 546 U.S. 879, 126 S.Ct. 203, 163 L.Ed.2d 179 (2005), and a reduction is available only if a defendant is “substantially less culpable than the average participant,” U.S.S.G. 3B1.2, comment, (n. 3(A)). In this case, Mr. Marshall, over a considerable period of time and with full knowledge of the prostitution ring in which he was participating, recruited and took applications from women, drove them to and from their assignations, instructed them on how to perform their services, collected and deposited money earned from their actions, and knew and communicated with the principals in the operation. As the district judge noted, Mr. Marshall was involved in virtually all of the necessary work of the enterprise. While he might not have been as culpable as the owner of the enterprise, “merely showing that the defendant was less culpable than other participants is not enough to entitle the defendant to [a minor-role] adjustment if the defendant was deeply involved in the offense.” United States v. Adamson, 608 F.3d 1049, 1054 (8th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Because substantial evidence supported the district court’s determination and it committed no legal error, we affirm the judgment.

1

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 F. App'x 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-marshall-ca8-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack