Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02924/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02924-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Thomas Siems
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2924

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Calvin Thomas Siems, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2005

Filed: July 29, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Siems appeals the 88-month sentence the district court1

 imposed after

he pleaded guilty to distributing a mixture and substance containing

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Siems’s counsel has moved

to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he

argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing an excessive sentence.

Siems has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that in sentencing him, the

district court violated Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), by relying upon

Appellate Case: 04-2924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2005 Entry ID: 1934167
-2-

drug quantities not charged in the indictment, admitted by him, or proved to a jury,

and that the court also miscalculated his criminal history category and improperly

considered his arrest record. In separately filed motions, Siems asks for new

appellate counsel, various record documents, and additional time to file another brief.

We consider only the challenge to the length of Siems’s sentence–i.e.,

counsel’s argument that Siems’s sentence is “excessive”--because in his written plea

agreement, Siems expressly waived the right to appeal his sentence on any basis

except for an “upward departure . . . from the [G]uideline range established by the

Court for the offense,” and the record demonstrates the waiver should be enforced.

See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,

540 U.S. 997 (2003).

 

The district court sentenced Siems after the Blakely decision but prior to the

United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738

(2005). The district court determined that the Guidelines were unconstitutional. As

a result, the district court did not make factual findings concerning the objections

lodged by the defendant to the presentence report. The district court did appear to

make certain assumptions concerning what the Guidelines might be, however, we

believe that under our court’s interpretation of the Booker decision, that the district

court was required to either make a determination of the Guideline range before

applying the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, or to explain why a Guideline determination

was impractical or impossible. United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. Iowa,

Apr. 13, 2005). Since we are not able to determine if there was an upward departure

from an appropriately determined Guideline range in this case, it is this court’s

determination that the appeal in this case does not violate the appeal waiver and the

case must be remanded for resentencing.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 04-2924 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2005 Entry ID: 1934167