Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03526/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03526-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James E. Steinbrook
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3526

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

James E. Steinbrook, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2005

Filed: April 12, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James E. Steinbrook pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of

ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Viewing the

federal Sentencing Guidelines as presumptively constitutional and mandatory, the

district court imposed a Guidelines sentence of 51 months imprisonment and 5 years

supervised release. The court stated, however, that 12 months would be a more

appropriate prison term in this case, if the Guidelines were not mandatory; and

Mr. Steinbrook stated that he was not acquiescing to the constitutionality of the

Guidelines. Mr. Steinbrook now appeals, arguing that it was inappropriate to

sentence him under an unconstitutional Guidelines scheme.

Appellate Case: 04-3526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2005 Entry ID: 1889761
-2-

We conclude that Mr. Steinbrook preserved his challenge to the

constitutionality of the Guidelines, and that it was not harmless error for the district

court to sentence him under a Guidelines scheme the court believed to be mandatory.

See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57, 769 (2005) (holding mandatory

aspect of federal Sentencing Guidelines was unconstitutional; modifying Sentencing

Reform Act provisions to make Guidelines advisory; in cases not involving Sixth

Amendment violation, whether resentencing is warranted may depend on application

of harmless-error doctrine); United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir.

2005) (sentencing defendant under Guidelines scheme district court believed to be

mandatory rather than advisory was not harmless error, where district court sentenced

defendant to minimum possible sentence under applicable Guidelines range and

appeals court was left with “grave doubt” as to whether district court might have

imposed lesser sentence if it had realized that Guidelines were only advisory;

remanding for resentencing); United States v. Sayre, 400 F.3d 599, 600-601 (8th Cir.

2005) (ultimate inquiry requires determination as to whether error affected substantial

rights, which in most cases means whether error was prejudicial or affected outcome

of district court proceedings).

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand to the district court so that

Mr. Steinbrook may be resentenced in accordance with Booker.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2005 Entry ID: 1889761