Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01066/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Lenn Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1066

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Jeffrey Lenn Smith, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 6, 2006

Filed: January 23, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Lenn Smith appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and structuring

monetary transactions, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324. On appeal, Smith argues that

(1) his sentence is unreasonable because he was sentenced under a mandatory

Guidelines scheme, and (2) the district court did not take the factors in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) into account when determining his sentence.

Appellate Case: 05-1066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2006 Entry ID: 2000122
-2-

Although the district court erred in sentencing Smith under a mandatory

Guidelines scheme, see United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005), and

Smith preserved the issue, see United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir.) (en

banc) (Booker error preserved by, inter alia, raising Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.

296 (2004)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005), we conclude that the error was

harmless, see United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644 (8th Cir. 2005) (harmlesserror review for preserved Booker error). Smith was sentenced in the middle of the

applicable Guidelines range and the district court indicated that it would impose the

same sentence under an advisory scheme. See United States v. Brooks, 417 F.3d 982,

985 (8th Cir.) (Booker error was harmless because defendant was sentenced in middle

of his Guidelines range), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 818 (2005); United States v.

Thompson, 403 F.3d 533, 536 (8th Cir. 2005) (Booker error was harmless where

district court announced that it would impose same sentence if mandatory Guidelines

were found unconstitutional).

While the district court did not explicitly discuss its consideration of the factors

listed in section 3553(a)--beyond the court’s application of the Guidelines--we are

unable to say that the sentence the court imposed is unreasonable. See United States

v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within correctly calculated

Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and defendant must rebut presumption

of reasonableness), cert. denied, 2005 WL 3067440 (U.S. Dec. 12, 2005) (No.

05-7506); United States v. Winters, 411 F.3d 967, 976 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming as

not unreasonable, sentence that was based on, inter alia, nature and circumstances of

offense and history and characteristics of defendant, even though district court did not

explicitly analyze § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Yahnke, 395 F.3d 823, 824-25

(8th Cir. 2005) (same).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2006 Entry ID: 2000122