Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04148/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04148-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald R. Swank
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4148

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Donald R. Swank, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 23, 2005

Filed: August 30, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald Swank challenges the sentence imposed by the district court upon his

guilty plea to conspiring and attempting to manufacture 5 or more grams of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. For

reversal, he argues under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), that the

district court erred in sentencing him under a sentencing scheme that is no longer

valid.

The district court erred in sentencing Mr. Swank under a mandatory Guidelines

regime, see Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756-57, and Mr. Swank sufficiently preserved the

Appellate Case: 04-4148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2005 Entry ID: 1945966
-2-

issue at sentencing by challenging his sentencing range under Blakely v. Washington,

124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), see United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005)

(en banc), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. July 27, 2005) (No. 05-5547). We thus review

for harmless error. See United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir.

2005).

We are left with “grave doubt” as to whether the error was harmless: not only

was Mr. Swank sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range, see id. at 645

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

Guidelines regime where court sentenced defendant to bottom of Guidelines range,

even if no Sixth Amendment issue was present), but the court stated explicitly that

the sentence given was the lowest allowed by law. Accordingly, we remand for

resentencing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2005 Entry ID: 1945966