Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02856/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02856-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chadwick Wayne Acison
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2856

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri. 

Chadwick Wayne Acison, *

* 

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: April 12, 2005

Filed: August 10, 2005 

___________

Before COLLOTON, McMILLIAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Chadwick Wayne Acison pled guilty to manufacturing 50 grams or more of

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

court sentenced Acison to a term of 100 months’ imprisonment. Acison appeals his

sentence, and we vacate and remand for resentencing in light of United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

Acison pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which he stipulated that he

was responsible for the manufacture of 229.03 grams of methamphetamine. Based

on facts admitted in the plea agreement, for purposes of the United States Sentencing

Appellate Case: 04-2856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2005 Entry ID: 1938583
-2-

Guidelines, the probation office calculated a base offense level of 28 under USSG

§ 2D1.1, and a total offense level of 25 after a three-level downward adjustment for

acceptance of responsibility. The probation office then calculated a criminal history

category of V, making the applicable guideline sentencing range 100 to 125 months.

Acison did not object to the PSR’s findings of fact. The district court declined to

depart downward from the applicable guideline range, but did sentence Acison at the

bottom of the range. In addition, although Acison had not yet objected to the use of

the mandatory guidelines, the district court announced that “[i]f the guidelines should

be declared unconstitutional, then it’ll be the judgment of the Court that the defendant

be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 60 months.” (S. Tr. at 4). The court

advised Acison that he could “appeal the guidelines,” and reiterated that if the

guidelines were declared unconstitutional, Acison would receive a 60-month

sentence. (S. Tr. at 6).

The government argues that Acison, as part of his plea agreement, waived his

right to appeal the sentence based on Booker. In the agreement, Acison agreed that

“his sentence w[ould] be determined and imposed pursuant to the Sentencing

Guidelines,” and that he could appeal only sentencing issues “which ha[d] not been

agreed upon or . . . specifically addressed” in the agreement. We have held, however,

that a plea agreement with virtually identical provisions does not waive the right to

pursue a Booker claim on appeal, United States v. Lea, 400 F.3d 1115, 1116 (8th Cir.

2005) (per curiam), and we therefore reach the same conclusion here.

In Booker, the Supreme Court held that certain applications of the mandatory

sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment. As a remedy, the Court

declared the guidelines “effectively advisory” in all cases. The government argues

that there was no error at all in this case, because Acison stipulated to or admitted all

of the facts upon which his sentence was based. If correct, however, this argument

establishes only that the case involves no constitutional error under the Sixth

Amendment. Acison undoubtedly was sentenced in accordance with the mandatory

Appellate Case: 04-2856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2005 Entry ID: 1938583
-3-

sentencing guidelines, rather than the advisory scheme announced in Booker, so his

case at a minimum involves a non-constitutional error. See United States v. Pirani,

406 F.3d 543, 548 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

The government argues that Acison did not preserve a Booker objection in the

district court, and that we should review the sentence under the relatively deferential

plain-error standard. See Pirani, 406 F.3d at 549-50. This case involves an unusual

situation in which the defendant did not argue the point of error, but the district court

sua sponte raised the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines. The district court

informed Acison that he would receive a lesser sentence if the guidelines were found

unconstitutional, and that he could appeal that issue.

Given that the district court indicated it was fully aware of the issue that Acison

now appeals, and that the court obviously had an opportunity to consider and decide

it, there is authority supporting the view that Acison was not required to raise the

issue himself in order to preserve it. See United States v. Martinez-Cigarroa, 44 F.3d

908, 909 n.1 (10th Cir. 1995); see generally United States v. Thornberg, 844 F.3d

573, 575 (8th Cir. 1988) (discussing policies underlying requirement of preserving

error). We need not resolve that question definitively, however, because even under

the plain-error standard, Acison is entitled to resentencing. The district court’s

statement at sentencing – that it would have imposed a term of 60 months rather than

100 months “if the guidelines should be declared unconstitutional” – establishes a

reasonable probability that the court would have imposed a more favorable sentence

if the guidelines were not mandatory. Under our post-Booker precedents, this error

also seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or reputation of judicial proceedings. See

United States v. Rodriguez-Ceballos, 407 F.3d 937, 941-42 (8th Cir. 2005); United

States v. Beltran-Arce, No. 03-4035, 2005 WL 1773794, at * 4 (8th Cir. July 28,

2005).

Appellate Case: 04-2856 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/10/2005 Entry ID: 1938583
-4-

Although the district court previously stated a specific term of imprisonment

that would be imposed “if the guidelines are declared unconstitutional,” the court at

that time did not have the benefit of guidance from Booker, including the requirement

that a district court must consider the advisory guideline range and arrive at a final

sentence that is “reasonable” with regard to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We express no view

on whether any particular sentence would be “reasonable,” and we leave it to the

district court in the first instance to impose sentence in accordance with Booker and

§ 3553(a).

The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for

resentencing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2856 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/10/2005 Entry ID: 1938583