Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04206/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04206-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Travis Michael Cullen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4206

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Travis Michael Cullen, * 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 11, 2005

Filed: January 5, 2006

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Travis Michael Cullen appeals his 135-month sentence following a guilty plea

to one count of conspiracy to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A). Finding the district court's sentence

under a mandatory Guidelines regime was not harmless error, we remand for

resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005).

Appellate Case: 04-4206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2006 Entry ID: 1993550
-2-

I. Background

In his plea agreement, Cullen agreed to the application of a four-level role

enhancement under § 3B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. After Cullen

pleaded guilty, but before he was sentenced, the Supreme Court decided Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Thereafter, relying on Blakely, Cullen objected to

the role enhancement, admitting that he signed the plea agreement but denying that

he made a factual admission during his plea. Cullen also challenged the

constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines raising the separation of powers

doctrine. Cullen's new arguments prompted the government to move to set aside the

guilty plea on the ground that Cullen breached his plea agreement. 

At sentencing, the district court denied the government's motion to set aside the

guilty plea. The court also found that the four-level role enhancement found in

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 applied. The court relied on Cullen's signature on the plea agreement

finding it was "the equivalent of the defendant acknowledging the factual basis that

he was an organizer or leader of criminal activity that involved five or more

participants . . . I read paragraph 11 of the plea agreement as basically a factual

admission of the conduct necessary to give that four points." Sentencing Transcript

at 11. The district court calculated Cullen's total offense level at 31: a base level of 30,

plus four levels for the role enhancement, minus three levels for acceptance of

responsibility. Thus, Cullen's Sentencing Guidelines range was 135 to 168 months

based upon a criminal history category of III and an offense level of 31. The district

court sentenced Cullen at the bottom of the Guidelines range (135 months'

imprisonment), with four years of supervised release. In setting the sentence, the

district court stated that the 135-month sentence "is the low end of the guidelines.

Under the circumstances of this case and based upon what's in front of me, that's as

low a sentence as I can impose." Id. at 14–15. Cullen now appeals his sentence raising

two points.

Appellate Case: 04-4206 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2006 Entry ID: 1993550
1

The relevant factual admissions contained in the PSR are as follows:

15. Travis Cullen was deemed an organizer or leader of the

conspiracy that involved five or more participants. Investigative

materials indicate that he orchestrated quantities of marijuana

from Los Angeles and San Francisco, California to Minnesota on

multiple occasions. Investigative materials indicate that Cullen

established sources for the purchase of marijuana and planned the

specifics pertaining to transporting the marijuana. He recruited

others to assist with the transportation and distribution of

marijuana and reimbursed them financially for their assistance . .

. . [I]nvestigative materials reveal additional shipments of

marijuana to Minnesota at Cullen's direction prior to March 23,

2003 . . . .

20. The defendant submitted the following written statement to the

probation officer regarding the instant offense:

I have smoked marijuana since my early teens. By age 15

I was selling to others my age. It allowed me to have free

marijuana and some additional cash. I sold bigger and

bigger quantities as time went on. I was able to establish

credit with several suppliers and turned it into a profitable

business. In the case before the Court, I set up a transaction

-3-

II. Discussion

First, Cullen claims that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights

by applying the four-level role enhancement. Cullen argues that his plea agreement

did not include an admission to the facts necessary to support that enhancement. The

record shows Cullen did object to the Presentence Report's ("PSR") recommended role

enhancement, and the government declined to present evidence to prove that

enhancement. However, Cullen does not contend in this appeal that the facts as recited

in the PSR do not support the four-level enhancement, and he did not object to the

factual allegations contained in the PSR. By not objecting to the PSR's factual

allegations, Cullen has admitted them.1 United States v. Ellis, 417 F.3d 931, 933 (8th

Appellate Case: 04-4206 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/05/2006 Entry ID: 1993550
on the west coast and sent Ryan Johnson out to courier the

marijuana back to sell. He was caught and incriminated me.

There is no doubt that he was working for me, that I was

doing something totally illegal and no doubt that I knew

what I was doing was illegal. I clearly was doing it for the

money. Ben Schuckert was my partner in this deal and we

were to split the profits.

-4-

Cir. 2005). "We have recently held that a fact in a PSR not specifically objected to is

a fact admitted by the defendant for purposes of Booker." United States v. Keller, 413

F.3d 706, 709 (8th Cir. 2005). As a result, there is no Sixth Amendment error in this

case because the facts in the PSR, which are admitted for Booker purposes, support

the district court's imposition of the four-level enhancement for Cullen's role in the

offense.

Second, Cullen argues that the district court committed procedural error under

Booker by applying the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory. We agree and reject the

government's contention that Cullen waived, in his plea agreement, his right to make

this challenge on appeal. Cullen's acknowledgment in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plea

agreement that certain Guidelines provisions would be applicable to his case did not

specifically address the issue of mandatory or advisory application of the Guidelines.

United States v. Lea, 400 F.3d 1115, 1116 (8th Cir. 2005). "Therefore, the language

of the plea agreement cannot be construed to foreclose [Cullen's] ability to make this

constitutional challenge." Id. 

The government contends that Cullen did not argue in the district court that the

Guidelines were unconstitutional based upon Blakely or the Sixth Amendment, nor did

he argue that the Guidelines were merely advisory. Instead, Cullen argued that the

Guidelines were unconstitutional based on a violation of the separation of powers

between the second and third branches. The government states that any error should

be reviewed under a plain error standard. Cullen responds that he did preserve his

Appellate Case: 04-4206 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/05/2006 Entry ID: 1993550
-5-

Booker challenge because he alleged Blakely error in the district court and moved to

set aside the Guidelines as unconstitutional. Cullen admits he made a separation of

powers constitutional argument below, but urges that this should not relegate his

claims to only plain error review. 

"Applying the guidelines as mandatory [pre-Booker] is (understandable) error."

Ellis, 417 F.3d at 933. A criminal defendant preserves Booker error if the defendant

below argued Apprendi or Blakely error or that the Guidelines were unconstitutional.

United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005). In this case, Cullen

preserved his Booker challenge by invoking Blakely before the district court. Because

Cullen preserved his objection in the district court, we review for harmless error. 

The government bears the burden of proving that the district court's use of

mandatory Guidelines was harmless error. Ellis, 417 F.3d at 933. Here, because the

error was not of a constitutional magnitude, the government is required to prove no

"grave doubt" exists as to whether the error substantially influenced the outcome of

the proceedings. United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 645 (8th Cir. 2005). "On the

basis of the record before us, we cannot say with any confidence that the district court

would not have sentenced the defendant to a lesser sentence . . . had the district court

realized that the federal sentencing guidelines were only advisory." Id. Because Cullen

was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range, we are left with "grave doubt"

as to whether the error was harmless, and we remand for resentencing. Id.; Ellis, 417

F.3d at 934; United States v. Burns, 409 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir. 2005). 

For the reasons stated above, the sentence is vacated, and this case is remanded

for resentencing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4206 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/05/2006 Entry ID: 1993550