Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03319/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03319-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Robert E. Watkins
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3319

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska

Robert E. Watkins, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2005

Filed: July 13, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court for further

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

opinion filed on October 28, 2004, we rejected numerous arguments raised by

Watkins regarding his conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm

as a previously convicted felon. With respect to all matters other than further

consideration of Watkins’s sentence in light of Booker, we adhere to our prior

opinion. See United States v. Watkins, 2004 WL 2402604 (8th Cir. 2004)

(unpublished).

Appellate Case: 03-3319 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927421 
-2-

Watkins’s sentence did not involve a violation of the Sixth Amendment as

interpreted in Booker, because the district court determined the applicable sentencing

guideline range based on facts proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and on the

facts of Watkins’s prior convictions. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756; United States v.

Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2005). The district court’s imposition of

sentence pursuant to the mandatory sentencing guidelines, however, does constitute

error under the remedial holding of Booker that the guidelines are effectively advisory

in all cases.

Because Watkins raised no objection in the district court based on the Sixth

Amendment or the mandatory nature of the guidelines, we review his sentence under

the plain-error standard. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549-50 (8th Cir.

2005). Under that standard, resentencing is warranted only if the record establishes

a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a more favorable

sentence under the advisory guideline system announced in Booker. Id. at 552.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that it does not meet the

requisite standard for relief on plain-error review. The district court sentenced

Watkins at the low end of the applicable guideline sentencing range of 210 to 262

months’ imprisonment, but a sentence at the bottom of the range is insufficient,

without more, to establish a reasonable probability of a more favorable sentence

under the advisory system. Id. at 553. Watkins was sentenced as an armed career

criminal, and his record includes a serious criminal history ranging from 1979 to

1997, including, among others, convictions for manslaughter, burglary (twice),

assault and battery (thrice), attempted first degree assault, and possession of a weapon

by a felon. In imposing sentence, the district court explained:

I have sentenced you within the guideline range. The range does exceed

24 months. I’ve nevertheless selected a sentence at the low end of the

guideline range. Although you didn’t accept responsibility for the crime

Appellate Case: 03-3319 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927421 
-3-

of which you are convicted, you didn’t impede or obstruct justice, but

the sentence at the low end of the guideline, in my belief anyway, does

sufficiently punish you and at the same time obtain the goals expressed

by the Sentencing Commission. So those are the reasons for my

sentence.

We see nothing in the district court’s comments or the record as a whole that

provides any basis other than speculation to conclude that a more favorable sentence

would have been imposed under the advisory guideline system. Where the effect of

the erroneous application of mandatory guidelines on the result in the district court

is “uncertain or indeterminate – where we would have to speculate,” the record does

not establish that the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. Id. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant’s pro se

motion to remand the case to the district court is denied. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3319 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927421