Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01587/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01587-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mandi L. Smiley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1587

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Mandi L. Smiley, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 30, 2004

Filed: July 5, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mandi Smiley (Smiley) appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after

she pled guilty to conspiring to possess pseudoephedrine, knowing or having

reasonable cause to know it would be used to manufacture a controlled substance, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. For reversal, Smiley argues the district court erred in

finding her responsible for a drug quantity that included pseudoephedrine purchased

by her codefendants. She also argues the drug-quantity finding violated her Sixth

Appellate Case: 04-1587 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923743
-2-

Amendment rights, because the amount was determined by the district court after a

contested hearing.

A defendant is accountable for all of the reasonably foreseeable acts and

omissions of others in furtherance of jointly undertaken criminal activity. See

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) & comment. (n.2). At sentencing, testimony was received

concerning the efforts of Smiley and her codefendants to buy pseudoephedrine at

various drug stores. The testimony shows Smiley and her codefendants traveled

together and coordinated their movements for the common purpose of obtaining

pseudoephedrine, and each was aware of the other’s activities. In fact, they

coordinated their movements, so as not to appear suspicious, by entering the stores

and returning to the car separately. In these circumstances, we conclude the district

court did not clearly err in holding Smiley responsible not only for the

pseudoephedrine she personally purchased, but also for the pseudoephedrine

purchased by her codefendants as part of their jointly undertaken criminal activity.

See United States v. Alexander, No. 04-1537, 2005 WL 1309074, at *4 (8th Cir. June

3, 2005) (standard of review).

As to the Sixth Amendment challenge, while Smiley objected at sentencing that

she should be held responsible only for the pseudoephedrine she purchased, this

objection was insufficient to preserve a claim of error under United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549-50 (8th Cir.

2005) (en banc) (objection to sufficiency of proof alone does not preserve Booker

error; defendant can preserve error by referencing Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.

2531 (2004), Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), or by arguing that

Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional). Thus, we review for plain error, and

conclude Smiley has not shown a “reasonable probability” she would have received

a lesser sentence but for the Booker error. See id. at 550, 552.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1587 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923743