Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03119/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03119-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Damarius Asim Simmons
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Theodore McMillian died on January 18, 2006. This opinion

is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to Eighth Circuit Rule

47E.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3119

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Damarius Asim Simmons, also *

known as D-Mac, also known as “D,” * [UNPUBLISHED] 

*

Appellant. *

 ___________

Submitted: June 30, 2005 

Filed: February 1, 2006

___________

Before BYE, MCMILLIAN,1

 and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Damarius Asim Simmons (Simmons) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute,

within 1,000 feet of a protected location, crack cocaine, a mixture containing cocaine,

and a mixture containing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) - (b)(1),

846, and 860. Pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines),

Appellate Case: 03-3119 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2006 Entry ID: 2004260 
2

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

-2-

which were mandatory at the time of sentencing, the district court2

 sentenced

Simmons to 360 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the calculated sentencing range

of 360 months’ to life imprisonment. On appeal, we affirmed Simmons’s convictions

and sentence. United States v. Simmons, 100 F. App’x 600 (8th Cir. 2004), vacated,

125 S. Ct. 1018 (2005). Simmons then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the

United States Supreme Court, which the Court granted on January 24, 2005. The

Court vacated our judgment and remanded the case to us for further consideration in

light of the Court’s decision in Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005). Simmons v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1018 (2005).

Because Simmons did not raise any Sixth Amendment issue or object to the

application of mandatory Guidelines during sentencing, we review his sentence for

plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 548-49 (8th Cir.) (en banc),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005). 

While the district court plainly erred in sentencing Simmons under a mandatory

Guidelines scheme, we conclude the error was not prejudicial because the record does

not establish a reasonable probability Simmons would have received a more favorable

sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme. See id. at 550-53. Although the

district court sentenced Simmons at the bottom of the calculated sentencing range, we

have repeatedly recognized “[a] sentence at the bottom of the Guideline range ‘is

insufficient, without more, to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the court

would have imposed a lesser sentence absent the Booker error.’” United States v.

Barth, 424 F.3d 752, 765 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553). See, e.g.,

United States v. Martinez-Noriega, 418 F.3d 809, 814 (8th Cir. 2005). Furthermore,

the record suggests the district court would not have imposed a lesser sentence. The

district court denied a downward departure for overstated criminal history, and noted

Appellate Case: 03-3119 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2006 Entry ID: 2004260 
-3-

there was “a very high likelihood of recidivism,” Simmons had “shown violent

tendencies in his criminal history,” and other courts’ efforts to show leniency to

Simmons had “not deterred [him] from his criminal conduct.” Because the district

court’s statements do not support a finding of prejudice, we conclude Simmons has

not demonstrated plain error warranting relief.

We also find the sentence is not unreasonable. See Booker, 543 U.S. at ___,

125 S. Ct. at 765-66 (appellate courts now review sentences for unreasonableness; 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sets forth factors that guide sentencing and in turn will guide

appellate courts in determining whether a sentence is unreasonable). 

Therefore, we reaffirm Simmons’s convictions and sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3119 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2006 Entry ID: 2004260