Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01283/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01283-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clarence Stevens
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1283

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Clarence Stevens, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 4, 2008 

 Filed: January 22, 2008

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Stevens (Stevens) appeals the 60-month’s imprisonment the district

court1

 imposed after this court remanded for resentencing. See United States v.

Wintermute, 443 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2006). Stevens argues (1) the government should

not have been allowed to present evidence at the resentencing hearing, and (2) his

sentence violates the Sixth Amendment, because the sentencing enhancements he

received were based on facts not found by a jury or admitted by him. 

Appellate Case: 07-1283 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2008 Entry ID: 3393640
-2-

We conclude (1) the law-of-the-case doctrine required the district court to

follow this court’s mandate to allow the government to present evidence at

resentencing, giving all parties a full resentencing hearing; and (2) Stevens has not

shown that the law of the case should not apply here. See United States v. Huber, 462

F.3d 945, 953 (8th Cir. 2006) (declaring the law of the case requires a trial court to

follow the decision of the appellate court with respect to all issues addressed by the

opinion); United States v. Bartsh, 69 F.3d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1995) (explaining the law

of the case prevents relitigation of settled issues and requires courts to adhere to

decisions made in earlier proceedings to ensure uniformity, protect expectations, and

promote judicial economy); United States v. Callaway, 972 F.2d 904, 905 (8th Cir.

1992) (per curiam) (stating the law of the case should be followed unless a party

“introduces substantially different evidence, or [the] prior decision is clearly

erroneous and works manifest injustice”). 

We further conclude Stevens’s sentence does not violate the Sixth Amendment

because there is no indication the district court viewed the Guidelines as mandatory.

See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233-37, 245, 258-59 (2005) (concluding

the Sixth Amendment problem resulting from the mandatory nature of the Guidelines

is remedied by making the Guidelines advisory); United States v. Salter, 418 F.3d 860,

862 (8th Cir. 2005) (ruling, after Booker, the district court may enhance a sentence

based on judge-found facts if the court views the Guidelines as advisory). 

Steven argues in his brief the “increase in the offense level in the case at bar

skews the ‘reasonableness’ analysis.” We further review the sentence for

reasonableness, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, and conclude the

sentence is not unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, __ U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 586,

596-97; Rita v. United States, __ U.S. __ 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); and Booker,

543 U.S. at 261.

We affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1283 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2008 Entry ID: 3393640