Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03906/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03906-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lisa Brandt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3906

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Lisa Brandt, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2005

Filed: August 19, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Lisa Brandt, now known as Lisa Vinton, appeals from the sentence imposed

by the District Court1

 after she pleaded guilty to making a false material declaration

before the federal grand jury (i.e., perjury). See 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) (2000). We

affirm.

Brandt appeared before a federal grand jury and gave false testimony in the

government's presentation of evidence regarding a conspiracy to distribute

Appellate Case: 04-3906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942236
-2-

methamphetamine. Her false testimony concerned her actions at the behest of the

conspiracy's ring leader, Vincent Deherrerea, in removing a half-pound package of

methamphetamine from Deherrerea's home. Brandt told the grand jury she had

removed the package at the request of Deherrerea's wife rather than at the request of

Deherrerea, apparently in an attempt to minimize Deherrerea's role in her actions.

After Brandt was charged with perjury and pleaded guilty, the District Court

calculated a guidelines sentencing range of forty-one to fifty-one months. This

calculation required the cross-referencing of provisions regarding Brandt's perjury

offense with provisions regarding the offense of conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2J1.3, 2X3.1 (2003).

The District Court then sentenced Brandt to the high end of the range, fifty-one

months.

Brandt first claims the cross-referencing of provisions and the fact-finding

involved in calculating her guidelines sentencing range violated the Sixth

Amendment under the Supreme Court's holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.

296 (2004) (holding that the Washington state sentencing regime violated the Sixth

Amendment by permitting the use of judge-found facts to increase a defendant's

sentence beyond the range authorized by facts admitted by the defendant or reflected

by a jury's verdict). Because Brandt first raised her Blakely claim in the District

Court, she preserved her claim for review on appeal and we construe it as a challenge

to her sentence under the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738, 755 (2005) (extending the logic of Blakely to the United States Sentencing

Guidelines); see United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc)

(stating that a Blakely claim made in the district court preserves a Booker claim for

review on appeal). We need not decide whether the District Court's application of the

guidelines violated Brandt's rights under the Sixth Amendment or amounted only to

Booker error not implicating the Sixth Amendment, because either way the

preservation of her claim for review on appeal triggers our review for harmless error.

See United States v. Archuleta, 412 F.3d 1003, 1006 (8th Cir. 2005) ("We, of course,

Appellate Case: 04-3906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942236
-3-

will follow our circuit precedent and apply harmless error review to both types of

Booker error."); United States v. Bassett, 406 F.3d 526, 527 (8th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (reviewing for harmless error a preserved Booker challenge to a sentence

based on enhancements that violated the Sixth Amendment).

Anticipating the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Booker, the District

Court announced an alternative and identical sentence of fifty-one months based on

the court's consideration of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(1)–(7) (2000). The alternative sentence was to be imposed if the guidelines

were held unconstitutional "as a whole or in relation to the Court's application of the

Sentencing Guidelines in this case." Sent. Tr. at 28. The District Court obviously

considered the guidelines in fashioning the alternative sentence, as federal courts

must in sentencing convicted defendants post-Booker, see 125 S. Ct. at 757. Thus,

any Booker error that occurred "did not affect the ultimate sentence and was harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt." Bassett, 406 F.3d at 527. Further, the District Court

correctly applied the guidelines, and the sentence imposed is reasonable in light of

the statutory sentencing factors on which it is based.

Brandt next challenges the District Court's denial of a sentencing reduction for

acceptance of responsibility. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2003).

We review the District Court's decision regarding a § 3E1.1 reduction for clear error,

giving that decision great deference. United States v. Bell, 411 F.3d 960, 963 (8th

Cir. 2005) (quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1, cmt. n.5 (2003)).

A consideration for the District Court in determining whether to grant the reduction

was whether Brandt made a "voluntary termination or withdrawal from criminal

conduct." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1, cmt. n.1(b) (2003). Brandt

committed several violations of her conditions of presentencing release, including

two failed drug tests, and when placed in jail as a result of those violations, she was

found to be in possession of marijuana. When questioned under oath about the

marijuana at sentencing, Brandt gave testimony the District Court found was

Appellate Case: 04-3906 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942236
-4-

untruthful, thus again manifesting the same sort of conduct as the conduct to which

she had pleaded guilty. In these circumstances, it was not clear error for the District

Court to deny Brandt a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

We affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3906 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942236