221254P.pdf   08/09/2023  United States  v.  Austin Nichols
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-1254
                          and No:  22-1441
                          and No:  22-1477
                          and No:  22-1524
                          and No:  22-2055
   U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in using 
   attempted murder as the underlying racketeering activity when it 
   calculated defendant Nichols's and A. Herrera's base offense levels and it 
   did not, as defendants argue, rely on assault with a dangerous weapon as 
   the underlying racketeering activity; the district court did not err in 
   applying the attempted murder cross-reference in calculating Herrera's 
   sentence; however, the evidence was insufficient to show Nichols aided and 
   abetted attempted first degree murders, and it was error to apply the 
   cross-reference to his sentence calculation; the district court did not 
   err in finding Nichols responsible for conspiring to distribute cocaine; 
   the district court did not err in applying an enhancement to A. Herrera's 
   sentence under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(b) for role in the offense; A. 
   Herrera's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the evidence 
   supported the district court's calculation of defendant Trujillo's base 
   offense level under Guidelines Sec. 2A2.1(a)(1); no error in applying an 
   increase to Trujillo's base offense level for causing serious bodily 
   injury in a June 2020 shooting; no error in rejecting Trujillo's request 
   for a minor-participant reduction under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.2(b); the 
   district court calculated defendant M. Herrera's base offense level solely 
   on his drug conspiracy offense, and his argument that the court improperly 
   applied the murder cross-reference is not supported by the record; the 
   district court did not err in calculating the drug quantity for M. 
   Herrera; condition of M. Herrera's supervised release limiting his contact 
   with gang members is reasonably related to the pertinent sentencing 
   factors and does not constitute an impermissible delegation of authority 
   to the probation officer; the district court did not err in denying 
   defendant Pena a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction when 
   his guilty plea came after the deadline the court had established, thereby 
   impacting the court's resource allocation.