Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-04083/USCOURTS-ca8-02-04083-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Ray Courtney
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 02-4083

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Robert Ray Courtney,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Western District of Missouri.

[PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: September 9, 2003

Filed: April 5, 2004

Vacated: January 24, 2005

Reinstated: June 20, 2005

________________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Ray Courtney pleaded guilty to eight counts of product tampering

causing serious bodily injury and twelve counts of adulterating or misbranding drugs.

The district court1

 sentenced him to thirty years in prison, which was a three-level

upward departure from his Guidelines imprisonment range. Courtney appealed the

Appellate Case: 02-4083 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917482
-2-

extent of the upward departure. After reviewing the reasonableness of the extent of

the upward departure and concluding that it was reasonable, we affirmed Courtney’s

sentence. United States v. Courtney, 362 F.3d 497 (8th Cir. 2004).

Courtney petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

The Supreme Court granted his petition, vacated our judgment, and remanded the

case for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005). Courtney v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 989 (2005).

On remand, Courtney does not raise a Sixth Amendment challenge to his

sentence, nor does he challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory Guidelines

under which he was sentenced. He argues only that we should review his sentence

for reasonableness under Booker. Given the nature of his argument, we conclude that

Courtney’s case is unaffected by Booker because (1) our standard of review has not

changed and (2) the factual record has not changed.

First, we have held that the pre-Booker standard of review for a sentence that

resulted from a permissible departure is the same as the post-Booker standard of

review for all sentences: “whether the sentence imposed by the district court is

unreasonable, having regard for the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence,

as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and the reasons for the imposition of the particular

sentence, as stated by the district court pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(c).” United States v. Dalton, 404 F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing

Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765 (internal marks omitted)).

Second, as Courtney concedes, we are limited to the record from his original

appeal. (Appellant’s Supp. Br. at 6.) Courtney notes certain mitigating factors that

he argues fall within § 3553(a): his assistance in creating a substantial restitution

pool, his family and community ties and contributions, his surrender of his

professional licenses, his cooperation with the government in three criminal cases and

Appellate Case: 02-4083 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917482
2

 In light of this disposition, we need not address the government’s arguments

regarding the partial appeal waiver in Courtney’s plea agreement and Courtney’s

failure to preserve a Booker-type claim before the district court or this court.

-3-

one civil case, his lack of criminal history, his sincere remorse, and his adjustment to

his conditions of confinement. (Appellant’s Supp. Br. at 8, Appellant’s Supp. Reply

Br. at 13-14.) These facts were brought to the district court’s attention in the context

of Courtney’s motion for a downward departure, which the district court denied when

it granted the government’s motion for an upward departure. (R. Doc. 119 at 29-33,

R. Doc. 128 at 1-6.) These facts were before us in the record in his original appeal.

Thus, given the narrow argument that Courtney makes on remand, we conclude

that Booker did not change anything about this case factually or legally.2

 The

reasonableness inquiry that Courtney would have us undertake here would be an

empty exercise because it is identical to the inquiry that we already conclusively

resolved against him in the original appeal: we would look to the same factual

record, we would apply the same standard of review, and we would review his

sentence for reasonableness and conclude that it was reasonable. Courtney, 362 F.3d

at 500-04.

Accordingly, we reinstate our prior opinion and judgment affirming the

judgment of the district court. See United States v. Mohr, 407 F.3d 898, 899 (8th Cir.

2005) (upon remand by the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of

Booker, reinstating and refiling the panel’s earlier opinion after concluding that the

case was unaffected by Booker).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 02-4083 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917482