Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03140/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03140-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregland L. Phillips
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3140

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Gregland L. Phillips, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 15, 2005

Filed: July 6, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, FAGG, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gregland L. Phillips appeals his sentence arguing the district court1

 erred by

enhancing his sentence based on facts found by the judge rather than proved to a jury

beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.

On January 15, 2004, Phillips pleaded guilty to the charge of being a felon in

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Pre-Sentence

Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a four-level enhancement under the United

Appellate Case: 04-3140 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2005 Entry ID: 1924248
-2-

States Sentencing Guidelines for the possession of a firearm in connection with

another felony, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), and a three-level adjustment for acceptance

of responsibility, for a total offense level of 21. The PSR established Phillips's

criminal history category as IV, resulting in a sentencing range of 57 to 71 months.

At the sentencing hearing, held on August 5, 2004, Phillips objected to the

enhancement under the principles announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296

(2004). Initially, the district court indicated it would impose alternative sentences.

However, by the end of the hearing, after listening to further argument from Phillips's

attorney that the enhancement was not permissible under Blakely, the district court

stated: "I'm going to sentence [Phillips] like the guidelines are completely

unconstitutional." The district court then sentenced Phillips to 71 months'

imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. 

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

the principles of Blakely to the federal Guidelines and held the mandatory sentencing

Guidelines system was unconstitutional. As a remedy, the Supreme Court made the

Guidelines advisory. In United States v. Pirani, we explained the nature of the

Booker error to include "[a]ll sentences imposed by a district court that mistakenly

(though understandably) believed the Guidelines to be mandatory." 406 F.3d 543,

553 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). 

In the instant case, there was no Booker error. Prior to sentencing Phillips, the

district court determined the Guidelines were unconstitutional. Consequently,

Phillips cannot establish Booker error because Phillips was not sentenced under a

mandatory sentencing regime. 

Furthermore, our review of the record leads us to conclude the sentence

imposed was not unreasonable. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765-66. In imposing the

71 month sentence, which is at the high end of the range, the district court considered

Appellate Case: 04-3140 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2005 Entry ID: 1924248
-3-

Phillips's criminal history since the age of 16. The court also relied on the fact that

Phillips, after spending ten and a half years in jail for first-degree robbery, was

paroled, and then violated his parole by using drugs, failing to maintain employment,

and possessing marijuana. Additionally, the district court gave Phillips a three-level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The sentence is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3140 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/06/2005 Entry ID: 1924248