of time between Kuhlman’s statement and trial testimony. The trial was held approximately one and one-half years after the warrant was sought. Moreover, with regard to the key facts, Kuhlman’s trial testimony was consistent with the statements recounted by Deputy Aesoph: Kuhlman observed Pruett with a large amount of methamphetamine, and Pruett attempted to sell some of the methamphetamine to Kuhlman. Nor has Pruett demonstrated that Deputy Aesoph intentionally or recklessly omitted information about Kuhlman’s criminal history in an attempt to mislead the magistrate. At the suppression hearing, Deputy Aesoph testified that he did not have access to Kuhlman’s criminal history at the time he completed the warrant application. See United States v. Allen, 297 F.3d 790, 795 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we do not believe that the
holding that trial counsels performance in failing to object move to strike or request an admonishment of the jury with respect to the defendants criminal history was deficient and that it could not be said that the references to the defendants criminal history did not impact the jurys decision where the evidence was not overwhelming and reversing for a new trial holding that when a defendant qualifies as a career felon it is not necessary to ascertain the defendants criminal history category because the sentencing guidelines mandate a criminal history category of vi holding that omissions of informants criminal history from warrant affidavit did not support suppression where the affiant did not know the exact nature of the criminal history holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance after finding that the defendants criminal history category of i understated the seriousness of his criminal history holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category