United States of America v. Darrell Gene Andersen

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
________________
No. 04-2154
________________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v.
Darrell Gene Andersen,
Appellant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.
[UNPUBLISHED]
________________
Submitted: November 15, 2004
Filed: December 6, 2004
________________
Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
________________
PER CURIAM.
Darrell Gene Andersen pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and possessing methamphetamine
while on release from jail, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844. The district court 1
sentenced him to a total of 150 months in prison and eight years of supervised release.

-- 1 of 2 --

2Following submission of this case, the appellant filed a pro se motion to stay
the appeal pending the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, one of
the cases currently before the Court concerning the applicability of Blakely v.
Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
Pursuant to our Administrative Order Regarding Blakely Cases, issued on September
27, 2004, the motion to stay is denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the
Administrative Order to the appellant and to his appointed counsel.
2
The district court denied Andersen’s request for a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility because of his pre-sentencing conduct while on a court-authorized
furlough from jail to attend his sister’s funeral. He admitted that he had used
methamphetamine while on release, that he had concealed methamphetamine in his
mouth when he returned to jail, and that he had swallowed it when confronted by jail
staff. His urine tested positive for methamphetamine.
Andersen appeals the district court’s denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility
reduction. After reviewing the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we
conclude that the district court did not clearly err. See, e..g, United States v. Byrd,
76 F.3d 194, 195-97 (8th Cir. 1996) (district court did not clearly err by denying
acceptance-of-responsibility reduction for defendant who admitted that, while on
release pending sentencing, his urine tested positive for marijuana); United States v.
Thomas, 72 F.3d 92, 92-93 (8th Cir. 1995) (district court did not clearly err by
denying acceptance-of-responsibility reduction for defendant who admitted that he
used marijuana while on release awaiting sentencing); United States v. Poplawski, 46
F.3d 42, 43 (8th Cir.) (district court did not clearly err by denying acceptance-of-
responsibility reduction for defendant who used amphetamine, methamphetamine,
and marijuana while on release pending sentencing), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1109
(1995).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.2
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --