Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04003/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Daniel Anderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4003

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Eric Daniel Anderson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2005

Filed: December 14, 2005 

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eric Daniel Anderson appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to

being a felon in possession of a firearm. Anderson argues the district court’s

imposition of a U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4) enhancement to his sentence violated his Sixth

Amendment rights as recognized in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

Because Anderson properly preserved a Booker objection and was erroneously

sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines scheme, his sentence violated Booker. See

United States v. Thomas, 422 F.3d 665, 669 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court committed

error both in basing sentence on enhancements found by court at sentencing, and in

failing to treat Guidelines as advisory). We conclude the error was not harmless,

because the government failed to show the error did not affect Anderson’s substantial

Appellate Case: 04-4003 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2005 Entry ID: 1985636
-2-

rights. See United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005). Anderson

was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range and we disagree with the

government contention that the district court’s statements indicate the court would

have given the same sentence under an advisory system. To the contrary, taken in

context, the court’s statements reflect an intent to be lenient within its perceived

discretion. See id. (holding not harmless district court’s error in imposing sentence

under mandatory Guidelines regime where court “made conscious decision” to

sentence defendant to bottom of Guidelines range and defendant had raised several

mitigating facts). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4003 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2005 Entry ID: 1985636