Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02362/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02362-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andree Artis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2362

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Andree Artis, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 9, 2006

Filed: January 13, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andree Artis pleaded guilty to bank fraud. After the Supreme Court decided

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) (holding Guidelines merely advisory),

the district court*

 resentenced Artis at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range to

forty-six months in prison and five years of supervised release. Artis appeals his

sentence, and we affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-2362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2006 Entry ID: 1997040
-2-

Artis first argues that even under an advisory Guidelines system, sentencing

enhancements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt rather than by a

preponderance of the evidence. A majority of the Supreme Court in Booker did not

adopt this view, however. See 125 S. Ct. at 779 (Stevens, J., dissenting in part)

(stating Court should require proof beyond a reasonable doubt on sentencing

enhancements). Indeed, we have recognized “nothing in Booker suggests that

sentencing judges are required to find sentence-enhancing acts beyond a reasonable

doubt under the advisory guidelines regime.” United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543,

551 n.4 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We reject Artis’s contention that due process

requires sentencing enhancements to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See

United States v. Diaz, 296 F.3d 680, 683 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), which focuses on due process, does not forbid district

court from finding sentencing factors by a preponderance of the evidence). 

Artis also contends his sentence is unreasonable and thus should be reversed

under Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765-68. Under Booker, a sentencing court must consider

the Guidelines range and tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns, such

as the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Cawthorn,

No. 05-1892, 2005 WL 3148073, at *7 (8th Cir. Nov. 28, 2005). Section 3553(a)

requires the court to impose a sentence sufficient, but no greater than necessary, to

comply with the statute’s purposes. The court must consider the offense’s nature and

circumstances and the defendant’s history and characteristics, the need for the

sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to

provide just punishment, to deter criminal conduct, to protect the public from the

defendant, and to provide correctional treatment. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court

must also consider the kinds of sentences available, the Guidelines sentencing range,

the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution.

Id. When a sentence is within the Guidelines range, we presume the sentence is

reasonable. United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Appellate Case: 05-2362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2006 Entry ID: 1997040
-3-

 Artis contends his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed

to consider the full range of factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and selected a sentence

that is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of § 3553(a). Artis has not

overcome the presumption of reasonableness. At Artis’s sentencing, the district court

stated it was taking into account all of the factors in § 3553(a) and named the factors

before imposing sentence on Artis. Because Artis was a leader or organizer of an

extensive fraud ring and committed his offense shortly after release from prison while

he remained on supervised release, we cannot say the district court abused its

discretion in sentencing Artis at the bottom of his Guidelines range. 

We thus affirm Artis’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2362 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/13/2006 Entry ID: 1997040