Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02271/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02271-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2271

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

John Johnson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 12, 2005

Filed: November 15, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Johnson appeals his sentence of 40 months' imprisonment following his

conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He

asserts that because the United States Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional, the

district court1

 erred in giving them effect in sentencing him. It is true that in United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005), the Supreme Court held that, with

exceptions not relevant here, it was a violation of the sixth amendment to enhance a

guideline sentence on the basis of facts not found by a jury. But in this case no

Appellate Case: 04-2271 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2005 Entry ID: 1974638
-2-

enhancements were applied, so the basic Booker holding is of no avail to

Mr. Johnson.

We recognize that the district court nevertheless erred in passing sentence

because it treated the guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory, see Booker,

125 S. Ct. at 756-57. But Mr. Johnson raised no objection to his sentence below, so

we can review it for plain error only. We have examined the transcript of the

sentencing hearing carefully and have discerned nothing in it that would indicate a

reasonable probability that the sentence would have been shorter had the district court

been aware that the guidelines were merely advisory. Mr. Johnson is thus not entitled

to plain error relief. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 552 (8th Cir. 2005)

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

Affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2271 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2005 Entry ID: 1974638