Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03016/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03016-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luz Raymundo Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3016

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal From the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Luz Raymundo Garcia, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 17, 2005

Filed: April 27, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Luz Raymundo Garcia was charged by indictment with possessing with intent

to distribute over 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1) and (b)(1). He entered into a plea agreement, through which Garcia agreed

to plead guilty and stipulate to responsibility for at least 500 grams and less than 1.5

kilograms of methamphetamine, which equates to a guideline base offense level of

32. See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(4). Prior to Garcia’s sentencing, the Supreme Court issued

its decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Before sentencing,

Garcia filed a motion asking the district court to hold the guidelines unconstitutional

in light of Blakely. At sentencing, Garcia renewed this motion, which the district

Appellate Case: 04-3016 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Entry ID: 1896153
1

The charge to which Garcia pled guilty carries a mandatory minimum sentence

of at least 120 months. See 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). 

-2-

court denied. Garcia then argued that the presentence report overstated his criminal

history, which the district court treated as a motion for a downward departure and

denied. After an offense level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, Garcia had

a guideline range of 121 to 151 months.1

 The district court sentenced Garcia to 121

months, and this appeal followed. On appeal, he contends that the district court erred

in not holding the guidelines unconstitutional, and by not departing downward based

on the overstatement of his criminal history. We remand for a new sentencing

proceeding in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 

At the outset, we note that Garcia’s motion to hold the guidelines

unconstitutional was sufficient to preserve the Booker issue for our review. Accord

United States v. Haidley, No. 04-3312, 2005 WL 600358, at *1 (8th Cir. Mar. 16,

2005). Because the district court did not impose any enhancements beyond drug

quantity, which Garcia stipulated to, this case does not present any so-called “Sixth

Amendment violation.” Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 769. Rather, this case presents

precisely the same issue as was presented to the court in Haidley: a defendant

sentenced to the low end of the guidelines, who preserves a Booker issue, but who

faced no enhancements based on judge-found facts. As stated in Haidley, 

The issue we face, then, may be framed as follows. Is it harmless error

to sentence a defendant under a mandatory federal sentencing guideline

regime, as opposed to the Booker advisory system, when there is no

Sixth Amendment issue as to the guideline computation and the

defendant is sentenced at the bottom of the federal sentencing range?

Haidley, 2005 WL 600358, at *1. Haidley recognized that in such a circumstance,

the government bears the burden of proving that the error was harmless. Haidley,

2005 WL 600358, at *2. Where the district court sentences the defendant to the low

Appellate Case: 04-3016 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Entry ID: 1896153
2

Haidley left unresolved the question of whether we review Booker sentencing

errors to determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, Chapman v.

California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967), or under the less stringent “grave doubt” standard

announced in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946). We need not

decide that issue here, as the record supports Garcia’s position under either standard.

3

Although the government was presented with the opportunity to show that the

sentencing error was harmless, it did not assert such a claim in its brief, and it waived

oral argument. Thus, it has not satisfied its burden of showing that the sentencing

error was harmless.

-3-

end of the guidelines, and nothing in the record suggests that the sentence would be

the same if the guidelines were advisory, the government cannot satisfy the burden

of proving the sentencing error is harmless.2

 Id.

We find nothing to distinguish this case from Haidley. Garcia pled guilty,

stipulated to the guideline calculations, but argued that the guidelines were an

unconstitutional scheme. He thus properly preserved the issue for review. Moreover,

he was sentenced at the low end of the guidelines, and our review of the record does

not support the view that Garcia would have received the same sentence if the district

court was aware that the guidelines were not binding.3

 We thus remand for

resentencing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3016 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Entry ID: 1896153