Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03729/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03729-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold Darrell Ball
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3729

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Arnold Darrell Ball, also known as *

Kirt Jamall Jackson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2005

Filed: March 8, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arnold Darrell Ball appeals the 188-month sentence the district court imposed

upon his guilty plea to possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a

cocaine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). For reversal, Ball

argues that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), effectively overruled

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and that the district court

therefore violated the Sixth Amendment in finding that his prior controlled-substance

convictions qualified him for sentencing as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

Additionally, Ball asserts a Booker error because, had the district court not treated the

sentencing guidelines as mandatory, he would have received a different sentence.

Appellate Case: 04-3729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018287
-2-

Ball’s first argument fails as this court is bound by Almendarez-Torres. See

United States v. Torres-Alvarado, 416 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e are bound

by Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme Court explicitly overrules it”); see also

United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that district

court, and not jury, determines whether prior convictions subject defendant to be

sentenced as career offender), cert. denied, 74 U.S.L.W. 3230 (U.S. Oct. 11, 2005)

(No. 05-6173). 

As to his second argument, however, the district court (understandably)

committed error. Ball, citing Blakely, objected at his sentencing hearing to mandatory

application of the sentencing guidelines. This preserved his Booker claim. See United

States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005).

Thus, this court reviews for harmless error, with the government bearing the burden

of proof. See United States v. Mendoza-Mesa, 421 F.3d 671, 672–73 (8th Cir. 2005).

Where the error is of nonconstitutional magnitude, "the government is required to

establish that we do not have 'grave doubt' as to whether the error substantially

influenced the outcome of the proceedings." United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642,

645 (8th Cir. 2005). 

In this case, the district court, considering the guidelines mandatory, sentenced

Ball to the 188-month minimum. Nothing in the record suggests the district court

would have imposed the same sentence if it treated the guidelines as advisory. Thus,

this court has grave doubt whether the error was harmless. See United States v. Cullen,

432 F3d 903, 906 (8th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, the sentence is vacated, and this case is remanded for

resentencing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018287