Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04180/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04180-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daren Hill
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4180

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Daren Hill, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2005

Filed: January 25, 2006 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daren Hill pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The

Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended that Hill be sentenced as an

armed career criminal under § 4B1.4(a) of the federal sentencing guidelines because

he had at least three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses.

The district court1

 adopted the recommendations of the PSR, found that the applicable

sentencing range was 188–235 months, and sentenced Hill to 200 months in prison

and five years of supervised release. Hill appeals his sentence, and we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 04-4180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2006 Entry ID: 2001453
-2-

Hill first argues that the district court erred in sentencing him as an armed

career criminal because he did not admit, nor did a jury determine beyond a

reasonable doubt, that his prior convictions were violent felonies or serious drug

offenses. We have consistently rejected this argument and held that the

characterization of prior convictions is a legal question outside the purview of the

Sixth Amendment. United States v.Turnbough, 425 F.3d 1112, 1114 (8th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Next, Hill argues that the district court erred in sentencing him under a

mandatory guidelines scheme and that the case should be remanded for resentencing.

Hill is correct that the district court erred in applying the guidelines as mandatory.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Because Hill preserved this Booker

argument by arguing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), in the district

court, we review for harmless error. United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644 (8th

Cir. 2005). We have held that mandatory application of the guidelines is harmless

error when the district court had the discretion to impose a lesser sentence but instead

sentenced the defendant in the middle of the sentencing range. United States v.

Millot, slip op. (8th Cir. Jan. 9, 2006); see also United States v. Perez-Ramirez, 415

F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2005). That is the case here, because the district court

sentenced Hill to 200 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release when

it could have sentenced him to 188 months’ imprisonment under the mandatory

guidelines. 

The judgment is affirmed.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2006 Entry ID: 2001453