Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02863/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02863-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Wayne Raddatz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3047

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Steven Wayne Raddatz, *

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

Appeals from the United States 

District Court for the 

District of Minnesota.

___________

[UNPUBLISHED]

No. 04-2863

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Steven Wayne Raddatz, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 15, 2005

Filed: June 22, 2005

Appellate Case: 04-2863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2005 Entry ID: 1918749
-2-

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Steven Wayne Raddatz pleaded guilty to two counts of bank fraud in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341.

The plea agreement left a number of guideline determinations to the district court,

including the amount of loss, number of victims, role in the offense, and acceptance

of responsibility. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on these matters in

May 2004, and in June 2004 the parties submitted briefs setting forth their respective

positions. The presentence report recommended a final offense level of 25 under the

United States Sentencing Guidelines with a recommended sentencing range of 57 to

71 months. 

A sentencing hearing was set for July 21, 2004. Prior to sentencing, on June

24, 2004, the Supreme Court decided Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).

At sentencing, the district court determined Blakely applied to the Guidelines, but did

not render them wholly unconstitutional. Accordingly, the district court severed

those portions requiring it to enhance the sentence based on judge-found facts. The

district court also concluded it could not decrease Raddatz's sentence by three levels

for acceptance of responsibility, stating it would be unfair to the government to

decrease the offense level in his favor when it could not increase the offense level as

suggested by the government. 

Based on a base offense level of six and a fourteen-level enhancement for a

conceded loss amount between $400,000 and $1 million, the district court found

Raddatz's adjusted offense level was 20, with a sentencing range of 33 to 41 months.

Appellate Case: 04-2863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2005 Entry ID: 1918749
-3-

The district court then imposed a sentence of 36 months imprisonment and restitution

in the amount of $5,503,772.

Both parties appealed, with Raddatz arguing the district court erred by not

awarding him acceptance of responsibility, and the government arguing the district

court erred by not applying sentencing enhancements because of Blakely.

Under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Supreme Court

found the Guidelines unconstitutional to the extent they enhance a sentence beyond

the maximum sentence permissible based on the facts found by the jury, but the

Supreme Court's remedy was to "make[] the Guidelines effectively advisory" and still

"require[] a sentencing court to consider Guidelines ranges." Id. at 757. Because the

correct calculation of the Guidelines sentencing range continues to be "the critical

starting point for the imposition of a sentence," United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d

1012, 1016 n.4 (8th Cir. 2005), "[w]e first ask whether the district court correctly

applied the guidelines in determining a guidelines sentencing range," United States

v. Hadash, No. 03-2180, 2005 WL 1250331, at *1 (8th Cir. May 27, 2005). If the

district court failed to calculate properly the Guidelines sentencing range, "we will

remand for resentencing as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1) without reaching the

reasonableness of the resulting sentence in light of § 3553(a)." Id. (quoting Mashek,

406 F.3d at 1017). We will not remand, however, "if the error in application was

harmless, such as when the district court would have imposed the same sentence

absent the error." Id. 

Here, it is apparent the district court failed to calculate properly the Guidelines

sentencing range. Further, we conclude the error was not harmless. While we

express no opinion at this juncture as to the applicability of those Guideline

provisions the district court refused to consider, we note the PSR recommended a

Guidelines sentencing range of 57 to 71 months. Assuming the PSR accurately

calculated the sentencing range, the sentence imposed does not fall within any

Appellate Case: 04-2863 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/22/2005 Entry ID: 1918749
-4-

overlap between the correct and incorrect (33 to 41 months) Guidelines ranges. See

United States v. Harris, 390 F.3d 572, 573 (8th Cir. 2004). Additionally, we find

nothing in the record to suggest the district court would have imposed the same

sentence had it properly considered the Guidelines. See Hadish, 2005 WL 1250331,

at *2. 

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand to the district court for

resentencing in accordance with Booker. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2863 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/22/2005 Entry ID: 1918749