Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01678/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01678-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Berni
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1678

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for District

* of Minnesota.

Robert Berni, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 30, 2006

 Filed: February 28, 2006 

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Bernie appeals the 96-month sentence the district court1

 imposed

following his plea of guilty to conspiring to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and 846. The district court

applied the career offender provisions of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b), found the Guidelines

range to be 188 to 235 months, and granted the government’s motion for a downward

Appellate Case: 05-1678 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2006 Entry ID: 2014544
-2-

departure based on substantial assistance under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Sentencing

occurred after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005). The district court properly treated the Guidelines as advisory and

considered the appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). At sentencing, Bernie

requested that the district court impose the statutory minimum sentence of sixty

months. The government did not make a specific sentencing recommendation. The

ninety-six-month sentence that the district court imposed represented a reduction of

approximately fifty percent from the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. We

affirm.

It is undisputed that Bernie had prior convictions sufficient to trigger

application of the career offender provisions of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). He nevertheless

argues on appeal that the district court acted unreasonably when it applied the career

offender provisions. The government characterizes Bernie’s appeal as an

impermissible challenge to the extent of the sentencing court’s discretionary

downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.

We address the government’s argument first. Prior to Booker, it was clear that

defendants could not appeal the extent of a downward departure, or a district court’s

refusal to grant a downward departure, under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. United States v.

Goodwin, 72 F.3d 88, 91 (8th Cir. 1995) (“We have repeatedly held that the extent of

a downward departure is unreviewable on appeal.”). In fact, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)

precluded appellate review of defendant appeals regarding downward departures. See

United States v. Riza, 267 F.3d 757, 758-59 (8th Cir. 2001) (“[W]e have consistently

held that the district court's decision not to depart downward is unreviewable so long

as the court was aware of its authority to depart.”) (citing § 3742(a), other citations

omitted).

In the remedial section of Booker, the Court struck the statutory provisions that

made sentencing within the Guidelines mandatory and that set forth the standard of

Appellate Case: 05-1678 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2006 Entry ID: 2014544
-3-

review on appeal, including de novo review of departures from the applicable

Guidelines range. Booker, 543 U.S. at 259 (striking 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1) (Supp.

2004) and § 3742(e) (main ed. and Supp. 2004), respectively). This effectively made

the Guidelines advisory and made sentences under the advisory regime subject to a

general, overall review for reasonableness guided by the factors of § 3553(a). The

Court did not strike § 3742(a), however, and we have recognized the continuing

validity of § 3742(a) by refusing to review U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 departures as a matter

separate from our general, overall review for reasonableness. See United States v.

Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating in a case that involved no

challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence, “The decision not to depart downward

is not reviewable under 18 U.S.C. § 3742.”); United States v. Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865,

875-76 (8th Cir. 2005) (noting that Booker left § 3742(a) intact, refusing to review the

extent of a departure, but conducting a general review for reasonableness). The fact

that an advisory Guidelines determination involves a section 5K1.1 departure does not

shield the overall sentence from our review for reasonableness. Frokjer, 415 F.3d at

875 n.3. This review remains available because “an unreasonable sentence would be

imposed ‘in violation of law’ within the meaning of § 3742(a).” Id. Accordingly, to

the extent the government argues we are precluded from reviewing Bernie’s sentence

for reasonableness, we reject that argument.

Turning to merits of Bernie’s appeal, the argument that it was “unreasonable”

for the district court to use the career offender Guidelines is misplaced. The

determination of whether to apply the career offender Guidelines to calculate the

advisory Guidelines range is not a matter left to the district court’s discretion. Rather,

sentencing courts must correctly determine the applicable Guidelines range in order

to properly carry out the sentencing process under § 3553(a). Accordingly, we do not

review the determination of an advisory Guidelines range for reasonableness under

an abuse of discretion standard. We review underlying factual determinations for

clear error and advisory Guidelines determinations de novo. United States v.

Mathijssen, 406 F.3d 496, 498 (8th Cir. 2005). Based upon our de novo review, it is

Appellate Case: 05-1678 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/28/2006 Entry ID: 2014544
-4-

clear that Bernie’s prior convictions required application of the career offender

Guidelines provisions to calculate the advisory range.

Turning to the separate issue of the reasonableness of the overall sentence, we

find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s imposition of a ninety-six-month

sentence. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard

of review), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 276 (2005). The district court properly calculated

the advisory Guidelines range, permissibly applied a section 5K1.1 departure, and

took that resulting range and departure into account along with the other 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a) factors to arrive at the sentence of ninety-six months. The overall sentence

imposed is about half of the low end of the Guidelines range. Based on the facts of

this case—a recidivist pattern of returning to marijuana trafficking following prior

releases from incarceration and an admission by Bernie that he was involved in the

sale of over 227 kilograms of marijuana—and based on the applicable Guidelines

range and the other § 3553(a) factors, the sentence is reasonable.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1678 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/28/2006 Entry ID: 2014544