Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10593/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10593-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Kenny Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 21, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10593

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KENNY WASHINGTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CR-00287-1

--------------------

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After we affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of

Kenny Washington, the Supreme Court decided United States v.

Booker1 and vacated and remanded for further consideration in

light of that case. We requested and received supplemental

letter briefs addressing the impact of Booker.

 Case: 03-10593 Document: 0051114074 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2005
No. 03-10593

-2-

2See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 375-76 (5th Cir.

2005).

3United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir.

2005).

4Id.

5See id.

Washington argues that he preserved a Booker challenge by

objecting to the sentencing enhancements and that, therefore, it

is the Government’s burden to show that the error was harmless. 

Alternatively, he argues that if the error was not preserved and

the plain-error standard of review applies, he prevails under

that standard.

Washington’s objections were to sufficient to preserve his

Booker claim.2 Therefore, we review for harmless error.3 The

Government has the “burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt

that the error did not affect the outcome of the district court

proceedings.”4

The Government has pointed to no evidence to show that the

district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the

sentencing error.5 Although the district court stated that it

had “struggled” in deciding whether to sentence Washington at the

high or low end of the Guidelines range, in fact the court

sentenced him at the low end. Because the Government failed to

meet its burden, Washington’s sentence is VACATED and the matter

REMANDED for sentencing. In our prior decision, we held that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the

 Case: 03-10593 Document: 0051114074 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2005
No. 03-10593

-3-

cross-examination of Ralphcel Eaton or in allowing Tom Young to

testify. Because Booker does not change this result, that

portion of our prior decision is reinstated.

 Case: 03-10593 Document: 0051114074 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/21/2005