Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03635/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03635-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Jay Bruce
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3635

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Kevin Jay Bruce, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 7, 2005

Filed: July 13, 2005 

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Bruce pleaded guilty to escape. See 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). His

sentencing hearing occurred after the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), but before the Court announced in United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), that the federal sentencing guidelines

were effectively advisory in all cases. At sentencing, when Bruce challenged the

constitutionality of the Guidelines under Blakely, the district court1

 stated: “I have

taken a position as to the guidelines that they are neither constitutional nor

Appellate Case: 04-3635 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927390
-2-

unconstitutional, that if they are eventually found to be constitutional, I’m going to

sentence today on the grounds of those guidelines, and if they’re found to be

unconstitutional, I will have been sentencing on the ground that the guidelines

were unconstitutional, but I was using the guidelines as a guide only, not relying

on them as such.” (S. Tr. 6). The court then sentenced Bruce to 37 months, the

bottom of the applicable guidelines sentencing range. Bruce now challenges the

sentence. 

We conclude that any error in applying the mandatory guidelines for one of

the two alternative sentences is harmless, as the district court clearly indicated that

it would impose the same sentence under an advisory system. See United States v.

Thompson, 408 F.3d 994, 996-97 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The sentence also

is not unreasonable with regard to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3635 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927390