Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03003/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03003-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Brian Bern
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 03-3003

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

David Brian Bern,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

Northern District of Iowa.

 [UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: October 6, 2005

 Filed: November 16, 2005

________________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

David Bern was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or

more of methamphetamine (mixture) and to manufacture 5 grams or more of

methamphetamine (actual), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and (B),

and 846. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison pursuant to the United States

Sentencing Guidelines, which were mandatory at that time. We affirmed Bern's

conviction and sentence on appeal, rejecting his challenges to the admission of

evidence and to the imposition of a role in the offense enhancement at sentencing.

United States v. Bern, 96 Fed. Appx. 428 (8th Cir. 2004) (unpublished), vacated, 125

Appellate Case: 03-3003 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2005 Entry ID: 1975228 
-2-

S. Ct. 999 (2005). Bern then filed a pro se petition for a writ of certiorari in the

United States Supreme Court, which the Court granted on January 24, 2005. The

Court vacated our judgment and remanded the case to us for further consideration.

See Bern v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 999 (2005). After reconsidering as directed in

the light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005), and in the light of our own later decision in United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d

543 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005), we now remand this case

to the district court for resentencing. 

At the time of Bern's conviction, the Guidelines established a base offense level

of 36 for his criminal conduct. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual

(USSG) § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2002). The district court then added two sentencing

enhancements, finding that the government had met its burden of establishing facts

to justify a three-level upward adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1(b) for Bern's role in

the conspiracy and a two-level upward adjustment under USSG § 2D1.1(b) for

possession of a firearm. These determinations raised his adjusted base offense level

to 41. An offense level of 41, combined with Bern's criminal history category of II,

established a sentencing range of 360 months to life in prison. In the phase of the

appeal before us now, Bern alleges a Sixth Amendment violation based on the

mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines and judicial fact-finding (as

opposed to jury-found facts) in assessing the upward adjustments.

Bern did not raise an appropriate objection to his sentence on these same

grounds prior to his appeal, thus we review for plain error. Pirani, 406 F.3d at 550.

In order to succeed under the plain-error test, four elements must be satisfied; "'there

must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights,'" and (4) even

then the court will only remedy the error if it "'seriously affects the fairness, integrity,

or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Johnson,

520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997)). An error under Booker is plain if the sentence

imposed by the district court was done through a mistaken, although understandable,

Appellate Case: 03-3003 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2005 Entry ID: 1975228 
-3-

application of the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory. See id. To satisfy the third

element of the plain error test, Bern must demonstrate a reasonable probability, based

on the record as a whole, that he would have received a more favorable sentence had

the Guidelines been treated as advisory. See id. at 551.

Bern has satisfied the first three requirements. The record not only indicates

that the Guidelines were applied as mandatory, but that the district court was deeply

dissatisfied with the Guidelines sentence. The court emphasized that it "deeply

regret[ted] the sentence [it was] required to impose." (Sent. Tr. at 70). It went on to

note that "[t]here's no value in sentencing you to 360 months" and that the sentence

was "inhuman" based on its duration in comparison to the crime. Id. at 71. These

comments lead us to conclude that there is a reasonable probability that the district

court would have imposed a lesser sentence had the Guidelines been treated as

advisory. Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553 & n.6.

When the first three factors of the plain error test have been met by the

defendant, we as a court have "repeatedly chosen to exercise [our] discretion under

the fourth factor to vacate the defendant's sentence." United States v. Betterton, 417

F.3d 826, 833 (8th Cir. 2005). We have recognized that failing to do so would cause

a defendant to be incarcerated for a longer period of time than he or she would have

been sentenced to had the Guidelines been treated as advisory. Id. 

Thus, we find that Bern has satisfied the plain error test and that he should be

resentenced under the post-Booker procedures where the Guidelines serve an

advisory function. The district court must still first determine the applicable

Guidelines sentencing range, as it would have done under the mandatory Guidelines

system. United States v. O'Malley, 425 F.3d 492, 495 (8th Cir. 2005). In addition,

Booker does not preclude a judge from determining all the relevant sentencing facts

and any sentencing enhancements, even those on which a jury was not asked to make

specific findings Id.; United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.), cert.

Appellate Case: 03-3003 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/16/2005 Entry ID: 1975228 
-4-

denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). Once the court has determined the advisory

Guidelines sentencing range, it can then look to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a) to determine if a higher or lower non-Guidelines sentence is warranted under

all the circumstances.

Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for resentencing pursuant

to Booker.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3003 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/16/2005 Entry ID: 1975228