Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03810/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03810-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Allen Lighthill
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3810

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Michael Allen Lighthill, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 20, 2005

Filed: June 27, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and COLLOTON,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Allen Lighthill pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). The Presentence

Investigation Report (PSR) recommended that the court impose a four-level

sentencing enhancement under the then-mandatory Guidelines because Lighthill

possessed the firearm in connection with a felony drug offense, based on evidence

that Lighthill was arrested with the firearm in a car stocked with methamphetamine,

methamphetamine precursors, and drug paraphernalia. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5).

In the district court, Lighthill objected to the enhancement and to the pertinent factual

Appellate Case: 04-3810 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2005 Entry ID: 1920714
-2-

statements in the PSR. He also argued that the enhancement would be

unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), because the

facts underlying the enhancement were neither admitted nor charged in the

indictment. The district court overruled these objections and imposed the

enhancement, which increased Lighthill’s applicable Guidelines range from 51 to 63

months in prison to 77 to 96 months in prison. The court sentenced Lighthill to 77

months in prison, the bottom of the applicable mandatory range.

On appeal, Lighthill argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment

rights under Blakely, a claim governed by the Supreme Court’s supervening decision

in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Sentencing Lighthill under the

mandatory Guidelines regime then in effect was error under Booker. United States

v. Pirani, 406 F.3d. 543, 548-49 (2005). As Lighthill preserved this claim in the

district court, the government must prove that the error was harmless. United States

v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005). 

The government argues that Lighthill forfeited his Blakely claim by failing to

argue that the district court should not treat the Guidelines as mandatory. This

argument is foreclosed by our controlling en banc decision in Pirani, 406 F.3d at 550.

The government further argues that there was no Sixth Amendment error because

Lighthill did not “seriously dispute” the facts underlying the enhancement, making

the district court’s findings of fact on the issue “essentially uncontradicted.” As we

explained in Pirani, this argument, even if true, does not eliminate the Booker error.

The government’s post-Booker brief made no attempt to argue that the Booker

error was harmless, and after careful review of the sentencing record, we are unable

to conclude that the error was harmless. Accordingly, the sentence is vacated, and the

case is remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3810 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2005 Entry ID: 1920714