United States v. John W. McGrady Also Known as Walking John, 97 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. John W. McGrady Also Known as Walking John, 97 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2003 · …it is true, as the psr notes, that ms. bush was aware of what was going on with curtis and his associates. at p. 1043 ⚠ not in text
25 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Esequicio Londondio, United States of America v. Carlos Alberto Gonzalez-Rodriguez, United States of America v. Pablo Jaramillo, United States of America v. Juan Fernando Palacio, United States of America v. Nahum Alcantora (ca8, 2005-08-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Esequicio Londondio, United States of America v. Carlos Alberto Gonzalez-Rodriguez, United States of America v. Pablo Jaramillo, United States of America v. Juan Fernando Palacio, United States of America v. Nahum Alcantora
8th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2, cmt. n. 3(A) (2003); see also United States v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir.2000) (upholding district court's denial of mitigating role reduction for transporter of drugs), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1031 , 121 S.Ct. 1983 , 149 L.Ed.2d 774 (2001); United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Esequicio Londondio
8th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2, cmt. n. 3(A) (2003); see also United States v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir.2000) (upholding district court’s denial of mitigating role reduction for transporter of drugs), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1031 , 121 S.Ct. 1983 , 149 L.Ed.2d 774 (2001); United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert E. Huffman
8th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Cf United States v. Chatman, 119 F.3d 1335, 1341 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 976 , 118 S.Ct. 434 , 139 L.Ed.2d 333 (1997); United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Tauil-Hernandez, 88 F.3d 576, 581-82 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 , 117 S.Ct. 1258 , 137 L.Ed.2d 337 (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ramon P. Ponce
8th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
As this Court noted in United States v. Thompson, 60 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 1995), if a defendant could rely on his status as a courier to achieve minor participant status, “every participant in every drug distribution scheme would be presumably entitled to a minor participant reduction so long as he or she were able to prove the existence of an upstream drug supplier.” See also United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that although defendant contended he was merely a courier who played a small role in the drug deals charged, he was not a minor participant sin…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ramon P. Ponce v. United States
8th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
As this Court noted in United States v. Thompson, 60 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir.1995), if a defendant could rely on his status as a courier to achieve minor participant status, “every participant in every drug distribution scheme would be presumably entitled to a minor participant reduction so long as he or she were able to prove the existence of an upstream drug supplier.” See also United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996) (holding that although defendant contended he was merely a courier who played a small role in the drug deals charged, he was not a minor participant since…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Boyd
10th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Flowal, 163 F.3d 956, 959-61 (6th Cir.1998) (noting that a district court might adopt an initial, greater measurement of drug quantity where the district court received expert testimony that the quantity differential may have been attributable to 'static cling’); United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477, 1487-88 (6th Cir.1996) (affirming a district court finding as to drug quantity where the district court adopted the initial, greater measurement of drug quantity based upon expert testimony that the quantity differential may have been attributable to either 'consumptiv…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Martin Becerra
8th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Jones, 145 F.3d at 963 ; United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1042-43 (8th Cir. 1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Marc A. Snoddy (2×)
8th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Chatman, 119 F.3d at 1341 (although the defendant contended that he was merely a “mule” in a drug distribution scheme, this court held that a “minor participant” reduction was not required just because other parties supplied the drugs and the defendant merely transported them); United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir. 1996) (although the defendant contended that he was merely a courier who played a small role in the drug deals, the court upheld denial of a “minor participant” reduction, because the defendant’s role was “significant” in carrying out th…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Marc A. Snoddy (2×)
8th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Chatman, 119 F.3d at 1341 (although the defendant contended that he was merely a “mule” in a drug distribution scheme, this court held that a “minor participant” reduction was not required just because other parties supplied the drugs and the defendant merely transported them); United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996) (although the defendant contended that he was merely a courier who played a small role in the drug deals, the court upheld denial of a “minor participant” reduction, because the defendant’s role was “significant” in carrying out the…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Lais Noori
8th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996) (drug courier was not entitled to minor-role adjustment); United States v. Wilson, 102 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir.1996) (bodyguard and driver not entitled to adjustment).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Curtis Skillett
8th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Buffy Bush
8th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir. 1996) (not clear error to find that drug courier was not entitled to adjustment); United States v. Carrazco, 91 F.3d 65, 67 (8th Cir. 1996) (same); United States v. Wilson, 102 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1996) (bodyguard and driver).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Buffy Bush
8th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996) (not clear error to find that drug courier was not entitled to adjustment); United States v. Carrazco, 91 F.3d 65, 67 (8th Cir.1996) (same); United States v. Wilson, 102 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir.1996) (bodyguard and driver).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Henry Fred Camacho, Jr.
8th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996) (holding drug courier was not entitled to minor-role reduction because drug sale would not have occurred but for his participation).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Henry Fred Camacho
8th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding drug courier was not entitled to minor-role reduction because drug sale would not have occurred but for his participation).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Rogelio Preciado, Also Known as Emilio Mendoza-Valencia, United States of America v. Pablo Borges-Cano, Also Known as Jaimie Samorano United States of America v. Humberto Sanchez, Also Known as Humberto Sanchez-Hernandez
8th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996). 9 Sanchez raises a number of issues on appeal, and several grow out of the trial testimony of Jose Hernandez-Correa.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Rogelio Preciado (2×)
8th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jose Carrasco, Also Known as Demetrio, United States of America v. Jose Gonzalez
8th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996) (holding courier not entitled to minor role reduction because drug sale would not have occurred but for his participation).' For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the sentences imposed by the district court. 1 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jose Carrasco
8th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding courier not entitled to minor role reduction because drug sale would not have occurred but for his participation).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jose O. Martinez, Also Known as Daniel Alejo, Also Known as Pedro C. Alejo
8th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir.1996).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jose O. Martinez
8th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir. 1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
John W. McGRADY, Also Known as Walking John, Defendant/Appellant
96-1261.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 3, 1996.
97 F.3d 1042
1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 26018
1996 WL 560207
Carl W. Bussey, argued, Kansas City, MO, for defendant/appellant., Lajuana M. Counts, argued, Jefferson City, MO, for plaintiff/appellee.
Fagg, Lay, Murphy.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

John W. McGrady pled guilty to two counts of distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The district court [1] sentenced him to fifty-seven months imprisonment. On appeal, McGrady contends that his sentence was improperly calculated. He claims the district court erred by overstating the amount of crack with which he was involved and by not treating him as a minor or minimal participant under § 3B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

McGrady disputes the amount of crack attributed to him. He claims that the government did not establish that he was[*1043] responsible for 35 or more grams of crack, the amount necessary for a base offense level of 30. There was a variance between the weight of the seized drugs close to the time of the offense and over a year later when they were reweighed at his request. The district court found MeGrady was responsible for 37.22 grams of crack, after discounting evidence to link him to 9.61 other grams. The crack the court attributed to him weighed 37.22 grams at the initial weighing and 32.45 grams at the second weighing. MeGrady says he should only be held accountable for the lower weight which would have put him at a base offense level of 28. [2]

MeGrady challenged the weight of the drugs at the sentencing hearing and the method by which the crack was first weighed, and the district court indicated to the prosecutor that it was the government’s obligation to prove the drug weight. (Tr. at 11). During the testimony that followed, the chief forensic chemist at the regional crime laboratory in Kansas City testified that the drugs had been weighed by a standard method, that solvents and moisture typically evaporate crack over time, and that it was likely that the weight would have been significantly different when the drugs were weighed again a year later. He said the decrease in weight that had occurred was not unusual, and that he assumed evaporation accounted for the difference. (Tr. at 32, 19). He also testified that the larger the piece of crack, the more evaporation would occur. After hearing the evidence, the district court made findings that credited the expert testimony, found evaporation had caused the weight discrepancy, and attributed 37.22 grams of crack to MeGrady. These findings were supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.

MeGrady also argues that he was a minor or minimal participant in the offense and the district court erred in not granting him either a four or two point reduction in his guideline calculation. MeGrady contends that he was merely a courier who played a small role in the drug deals. The district court found that MeGrady was essential to the commission of the crimes and that they would not have occurred without his participation. The evidence supports these findings. MeGrady played a significant role in carrying out the drug transactions. The district court did not err in denying him a minor or minimal status reduction. See United States v. Ellis, 890 F.2d 1040 (8th Cir.1989).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

2

. In the plea agreement, the parties had indicated they believed the amount of crack "to be used in making the guideline calculation is more than 35 grams but less than 50 grams, which results in a base offense level of 30.”