Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03534/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03534-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John K. Hulit
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3534

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska

John K. Hulit, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2005

Filed: August 19, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Hulit appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for the

District of Nebraska upon his guilty plea to possessing with intent to distribute less

than 50 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1). The district court sentenced Hulit to 57 months imprisonment and 3 years

supervised release. For reversal, Hulit argues that the federal Sentencing Guidelines

are unconstitutional after Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). For the

reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.

Appellate Case: 04-3534 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942300
-2-

The district court erred in sentencing Hulit under a mandatory Guidelines

regime, see United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005) (holding

Guidelines to be only advisory), and Hulit preserved this question at sentencing. We

thus review for harmless error. See id. at 769. We are left with “grave doubt” as to

whether the error was harmless: Hulit was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines

range, see United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding

not harmless district court’s error in imposing sentence under mandatory regime

where court sentenced defendant to bottom of Guidelines range, even if no Sixth

Amendment issue was present), and the court suggested that Hulit’s sentence would

have been lower if the Guidelines did not apply. Accordingly, we remand for

resentencing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3534 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942300