Filed: May 06, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 02-3758 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Steven Royce Larson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: April 23, 2003 Filed: May 6, 2003 _ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Steven Royce Larson (Larson) appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after Larson pled guilty to possessing methamph
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 02-3758 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Steven Royce Larson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: April 23, 2003 Filed: May 6, 2003 _ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Steven Royce Larson (Larson) appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after Larson pled guilty to possessing methamphe..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-3758
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
Steven Royce Larson, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 23, 2003
Filed: May 6, 2003
___________
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Steven Royce Larson (Larson) appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed
after Larson pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). At sentencing, the district court
denied Larson an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction because of his participation
in a drug transaction the day after he entered his guilty plea.
1
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
Larson argues the district court erred in denying the reduction because his post-
plea conduct was an attempt to gain valuable information for the government. After
careful review of the record, we find that the district court did not clearly err in
denying the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt.
nn.1(b), 3; United States v. Ervasti,
201 F.3d 1029, 1043 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of
review); United States v. Nguyen,
52 F.3d 192, 194 (8th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-