Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Michael D. Thompson
Citations: 289 F.3d 524; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 8787; 2002 WL 904795Docket: 00-2509
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; May 8, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Michael Thompson was convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), after being arrested in Hot Springs, Arkansas, in July 1999. Following his guilty plea, the presentence investigation report (PSR) recommended a three-level enhancement for his role in managing drug activities, along with calculating his criminal history category based on two felony convictions from when he was sixteen. Although Thompson's attorney initially raised eight objections to the PSR, including the enhancement and drug quantity, these objections were withdrawn during the sentencing hearing, with Thompson agreeing to this decision. The district court subsequently sentenced Thompson to 144 months in prison, within the guideline range of 140 to 175 months. On appeal, now represented by new counsel, Thompson contested the district court's findings related to the enhancement, drug quantity, and his criminal history, arguing for review under the plain error standard. To establish plain error, the court must identify a clear or obvious error that affects substantial rights and impacts the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. The plain error standard applies only when a defendant unintentionally fails to raise an objection in the district court. In this case, Thompson's attorney explicitly withdrew all objections, including one related to sentence enhancement for managing or supervising others, and requested a sentence at the low end of the guideline range, which the court granted. Consequently, Thompson cannot argue on appeal against the district court's decision, as he received exactly what his attorney requested. The court emphasizes that plain error review under Rule 52(b) is only available when a right is unintentionally unasserted. Since Thompson's lawyer withdrew the objections, Thompson is barred from contesting them on appeal, leading to the affirmation of the district court's judgment.