Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02685/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02685-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Backer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2685

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

Mark Backer, * 

* 

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2005

Filed: August 23, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Mark Backer appeals from a decision of the district court resentencing him

from 60 to 87 months' imprisonment. We consider whether plain error occurred and

deciding that it did we remand for sentencing in conformity with United States v.

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

I. Background

A confidential source told the Mandan City Police Department that Mark

Backer owned a shop where there was frequent drug dealing. Officers executed a

Appellate Case: 04-2685 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2005 Entry ID: 1943293
-2-

search warrant at Backer's residence. Roger Kottsick was living there and told

officers that Backer resided at Backer's second shop. Kottsick voluntarily surrendered

a bag of methamphetamine and was interviewed by Officer Roger Becker. Kottsick

said he purchased a gram of methamphetamine from Backer at Backer's second shop

six days earlier. He stated that Backer kept methamphetamine on his person or in a

workbench at the shop. Kottsick also indicated that he saw firearms in Backer's

bedroom and on one occasion he saw a Street Sweeper 12-gauge shotgun on Backer's

bed. 

Officers searched Backer's second shop pursuant to a second search warrant

and found the Street Sweeper, a fully automatic machine gun, and approximately 54

other firearms in Backer's bedroom. Officers also seized drug paraphernalia and a

small amount of methamphetamine. Backer was indicted for (1) being an unlawful

user of a controlled substance and knowingly possessing 54 firearms; (2) knowingly

possessing a machine gun; (3) knowingly possessing a Street Sweeper shotgun which

had not been registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record;

and (4) knowingly possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Backer

pled not guilty to all counts, however, following a jury trial, Backer was found guilty

on all counts. 

The district court sentenced Backer to a term of 60 months' imprisonment, two

years' supervised release, and a $15,000 fine. Backer and the government appealed.

We affirmed Backer's conviction, but reversed the sentence and remanded for

resentencing. United States v. Backer, 362 F.3d 504, 509 (8th Cir. 2004). We held

that the district court erred in declining to assign a two-level enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1—one for destructive device and one for an obliterated serial

number. Id. The enhancements added six additional levels resulting in an offense

level of 29 and a sentencing range of 87 to 108 months. At resentencing, Backer did

not object to the Presentence Investigation Report and was resentenced to 87 months.

The Supreme Court announced its decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296

Appellate Case: 04-2685 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2005 Entry ID: 1943293
-3-

(2004), on the same day Backer was resentenced. Backer now appeals arguing that

changes to the federal sentencing guidelines affected by the Supreme Court's Blakely

and Booker decisions require a second remand for resentencing. We agree and

remand.

II. Discussion

We review the district court's sentence for plain error because Backer failed to

raise a Booker-type objection at sentencing but instead raised it for the first time on

appeal. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (a Booker

error "is preserved if the defendant below argued Apprendi or Blakely error or that the

Guidelines were unconstitutional"). 

Backer first argues that the Guidelines enhancements violated his Sixth

Amendment rights as established under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)

and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). These cases stand for the

proposition that "[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to

support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a

plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury

beyond a reasonable doubt." Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756. Booker clarified whether this

principle, which was first clearly enunciated in Apprendi, applied to the then

mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 755. The Court's remedy for this

constitutional infirmity in the Guidelines was to excise the provisions of the

Guidelines that made them mandatory. Id. at 756–57. 

Backer argues that the Apprendi principle invalidates three sentence

enhancements he received: (1) six levels for possessing more than three firearms

under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4); (2) two levels for possessing a destructive device

under § 2K2.1(b)(3); and (3) two levels for an obliterated serial number under §

2K2.1(b)(4). We disagree. During Backer's sentencing, he admitted possession of the

weapons in question and our prior opinion resolved the legal question of whether one

Appellate Case: 04-2685 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/23/2005 Entry ID: 1943293
-4-

of those weapons was a destructive device. Additionally, the jury found the facts that

form the basis for these enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the

district court's sentencing enhancements. 

Backer also argues that upon remand, the district court imposed a sentence

under a mandatory guideline sentencing scheme in violation of Booker. Backer is

correct. However, because he made no Sixth Amendment argument below, we review

for plain error, Pirani, 406 F.3d at 550, and analyze under the four-part test of United

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Under this test, there must be (1) error, (2)

that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) seriously affects the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The third prong of the Olano

test turns on whether Backer "has demonstrated a reasonable probability that he

would have received a more favorable sentence with the Booker error eliminated by

making the Guidelines advisory." Pirani, 406 F.3d at 552. 

The first two requirements of Olano are satisfied because the district erred in

sentencing Backer under mandatory Guidelines and we have previously determined

that error to be plain. Id. at 550. Our review of the record also shows that the court's

error affected Backer's substantial rights. Backer specifically sought a downward

departure based upon lack of criminal history and his possession of the weapons as

a collector. At the hearing, Backer also specifically requested a three-level reduction

for acceptance of responsibility. The district court made clear in its resentencing that

its sentence was a consequence of the mandatory nature of the Guidelines and the

prior opinion of this court. Also, the district court's prior sentence, which was 27

months shorter in duration, demonstrates a reasonable probability that upon

resentencing under Booker, Backer could receive a more favorable sentence. Lastly,

to affirm Backer's 87 month sentence under the present record would seriously affect

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. We find that

Backer has met the Olano requirements and has proven plain error. For the foregoing

Appellate Case: 04-2685 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/23/2005 Entry ID: 1943293
-5-

reasons, we remand to the district court for resentencing, consistent with the

sentencing scheme detailed in Booker. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2685 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/23/2005 Entry ID: 1943293