Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01998/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01998-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melody A. McCully
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1998

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Melody A. McCully, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 13, 2004

Filed: May 13, 2005 (Corrected May 23, 2005)

___________

Before MELLOY, BRIGHT, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Melody April McCully appeals her sentence following a plea of guilty to

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A), and § 846. On initial briefing, McCully's counsel moved to withdraw

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and challenged McCully's

sentence on various grounds. In supplemental briefs, both McCully and her counsel

assert that the sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. Jurisdiction being proper

under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 

Appellate Case: 04-1998 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2005 Entry ID: 1902461
1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

While McCully's case was pending on appeal, the Supreme Court held that the

federal sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional and no longer mandatory. United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57, 769 (2005). Now, "district courts, while not

bound to apply the Guidelines, must consult those Guidelines and take them into

account when sentencing. . . . The courts of appeals review sentencing decisions for

unreasonableness." Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 767. 

 After this court's independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), McCully presents non-frivolous issues that her sentence 1)

violates the Sixth Amendment, and 2) is unreasonable.

 

McCully claims her sentence violates the Sixth Amendment because she did

not admit to facts supporting the enhancements for obstruction of justice, possession

of a dangerous weapon, and drug quantity. Because McCully neither objected to the

enhancements on the basis of Apprendi, Blakely, or the Sixth Amendment, nor

challenged the constitutionality of the guidelines before the district court,1

 this court

reviews for plain error. See United States v. Pirani, No. 03-2871, slip op. at 6-7 (8th

Cir. April 29, 2005) (en banc), applying United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-

36 (1993).

Booker requires: "Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary

to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by

a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury

beyond a reasonable doubt." See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756. Contrary to McCully's

argument, the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") explicitly provided facts

supporting all three enhancements. McCully did not object to any of the facts

Appellate Case: 04-1998 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2005 Entry ID: 1902461
-3-

presented in the PSR. At sentencing, she stated she had reviewed the PSR, discussed

it with counsel, and when asked, said she had no objection to it. 

 

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3), a sentencing court "may

accept any undisputed portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact."

Therefore, a fact in the PSR not specifically objected to is admitted for purposes of

Booker. See United States v. Sayre, 400 F.3d 599, 602 (8th Cir. 2005) (Gruender, J.,

concurring). McCully's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated because she

admitted the facts supporting the enhancements by failing to object to the PSR.

The district court, however, plainly erred by applying the guidelines as

mandatory, rather than advisory. Pirani, slip op. at 11 ("All sentences imposed by

the district court that mistakenly (though understandably) believed the Guidelines to

be mandatory contain Booker error."). The defendant must establish that the error

affected substantial rights, that is, a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence.

Pirani, slip op. at 7, 12. For Booker error, the defendant can prove this by showing

that "the district court would have imposed a more favorable sentence under the

advisory guidelines regime mandated by Booker." Id. at 12. 

McCully was sentenced at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range, but

this is insufficient, without more, to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a lesser

sentence. See Pirani, slip op. at 12. The record on appeal does not indicate that the

district court would have imposed a more favorable sentence absent the Booker error.

See id. Therefore, McCully has not met her burden of proving prejudicial plain error.

Appellate Case: 04-1998 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/13/2005 Entry ID: 1902461
2

McCully's counsel, in the Anders brief, notes that this court has held that it

lacks jurisdiction to review for excessiveness those sentences that are within the

applicable guidelines range. See United States v. Smotherman, 326 F.3d 988, 989

(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 912 (2003); United States v. Garrido, 38 F.3d 981,

986 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Mihm, 13 F.3d 1200, 1205 (8th Cir. 1994);

United States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v.

Gordon, 974 F.2d 97, 100 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Onwuemene, 933 F.2d

650, 651 (8th Cir. 1991). 

Booker commands that: "The courts of appeals review sentencing decisions for

unreasonableness." Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 767. This court therefore exercises

jurisdiction over McCully's claim in order to review for unreasonableness, pursuant

to the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See id. 

-4-

Finally, McCully claims the sentence is excessive.2

 Although she does not

state her claim in terms of reasonableness, this court now reviews the sentence for

unreasonableness. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 767. Considering the then-mandatory

guidelines, the district court imposed a 168-month sentence – at the bottom of the

guidelines range. Because this is the sentence she requested, generally she cannot

complain on appeal. See United States v. Harrison, 393 F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir.

2005). To the extent McCully's statements at sentencing qualify her counsel's request

for the 168-month sentence, this court reviews the record in light of the factors in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a), and finds that the sentence is not unreasonable. 

 

This court thus affirms, and denies counsel's motion to withdraw because, at

this time, the Sixth Amendment and reasonableness arguments are not frivolous.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1998 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/13/2005 Entry ID: 1902461