Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03153/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03153-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jay M. Choate
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

__________

No. 04-3153

__________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Jay M. Choate, *

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 17, 2005

 Filed: September 27, 2005

__________

Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

The United States appeals from the sentence imposed upon Jay M. Choate.

Choate pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to distribute and possession with

intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In the plea

agreement, the parties agreed to the quantity of methamphetamine attributable to

Choate, which subjected him to a base offense level of thirty-two under the United

States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1. The parties also stipulated to a twolevel firearm enhancement and a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of

responsibility, making his adjusted offense level thirty-one. With a criminal history

category of I, the resulting sentencing range under the Guidelines was 108 to 135

Appellate Case: 04-3153 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Entry ID: 1956421
-2-

months. The district court accepted Choate’s plea, and on August 6, 2004, sentenced

Choate to sixty-six months, forty-two months below the low end of the applicable

Guideline range. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

In setting Choate’s sentence, the district court, based on the decision of a panel

of this court in United States v. Mooney, No. 02-3388, 2004 WL 1636960 (8th Cir.

July 23, 2004), considered the Sentencing Guidelines to be unconstitutional. The

court thus conducted its own analysis of the information in Choate’s presentence

investigation report and sentenced him to sixty-six months of incarceration and a fiveyear term of supervised release. This court en banc vacated Mooney the same day

that Choate was sentenced, and thereafter the United States filed a motion to correct

Choate’s sentence. The district court denied that motion and re-entered its sentence

of sixty-six months on August 17, 2004.

The United States appealed this decision, arguing that even after Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), Choate should have been sentenced within the

applicable range set by the Guidelines. The Supreme Court held in Blakely that when

a defendant pleads guilty, the government is free to seek judicial sentence

enhancements if the defendant stipulates to the relevant facts, which is what happened

in this case. Blakely, 124 S. Ct. at 2541.

Since the briefing was completed on November 15, 2004, the landscape for

sentencing in the federal courts has changed dramatically with the issuance of the

opinion of the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), on

January 12, 2005. While the Booker opinion holds that the Sentencing Guidelines

are no longer mandatory, the Supreme Court stated that federal courts still must

consult the Guidelines when determining sentences. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765-67.

Consequently, the district court erred by not consulting the Guidelines and taking

them into account during Choate’s sentencing hearing, even though the court was

Appellate Case: 04-3153 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Entry ID: 1956421
-3-

proceeding under the understanding, correct at the time, that the Guidelines were

unconstitutional in this circuit.

Although the United States timely objected, the district court’s error does not

require reversal if it did not affect substantial rights and was therefore harmless. Fed.

R. Crim. P. 52(a). The burden of proving that the district court’s error was harmless

falls on Choate as the beneficiary of the error. The error is not of constitutional

magnitude, as it does not implicate the Sixth Amendment as described in Booker. See

United States v. Storer, 413 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005). As a result, Choate must

establish that "no 'grave doubt' exists as to whether the district court’s failure to at

least consider the Guidelines" substantially influenced his sixty-six month sentence.

United States v. Barnett, 410 F.3d 1048, 1052 (8th Cir. 2005). In light of the fact that

Choate’s sentence was forty-two months below the suggested Guidelines range, grave

doubt does exist as to whether the district court would have sentenced Choate

differently had it been aware of its duty to consult the Guidelines. 

We are satisfied that, had the district court had the teaching of Booker before

it, the sentencing would have been conducted in accord with it. Choate's sentence

should be reversed and the case remanded to the district court for further sentencing

in accordance with Booker and such other cases issued by this court as may be

appropriate.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3153 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Entry ID: 1956421