Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03647/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03647-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elijah A. McDonald
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3647

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Elijah A. McDonald, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

___________

Submitted: September 6, 2006

Filed: September 11, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elijah McDonald pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and at sentencing the district court1

 applied two

Guidelines sentencing enhancements over McDonald’s objections. He appeals,

arguing that the court erred in applying the enhancements, because the government

relied on objected-to facts in the presentence report (PSR) in support of the

Appellate Case: 05-3647 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2006 Entry ID: 2087671
-2-

enhancements and did not present evidence to prove the supporting facts beyond a

reasonable doubt. We affirm.

We conclude that McDonald’s argument fails. The government must prove

enhancement-supporting facts by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a

reasonable doubt. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 551 n.4 (8th Cir.) (en

banc) (nothing in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), suggests sentencing

judges are required to find sentence-enhancing facts beyond reasonable doubt under

advisory Guidelines; Guidelines prescribe preponderance of evidence standard), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005). The government met its burden in this case because,

although McDonald objected to the enhancements and argued as a general matter that

objected-to facts in the presentence report (PSR) could not be used to support the

enhancements unless proved by the government, he never raised an objection to any

specific supporting fact. Thus, his objections were insufficient to call the

enhancement-supporting facts into question, the facts were deemed admitted, and the

district court properly relied on them in applying the enhancements. See United States

v. Okai, 454 F.3d 848, 852-53 (8th Cir. 2006) (factual allegations in PSR supporting

enhancements were deemed admitted where defendant made general constitutional

objections to enhancements, but made no objections to specific facts supporting each

enhancement; district court erred when it did not adopt those facts because it

incorrectly believed them to be in dispute); United States v. Cullen, 432 F.3d 903, 905

(8th Cir. 2006) (where defendant objected to PSR’s recommended role enhancement,

but did not object to factual allegations contained in PSR or contend that facts as

recited did not support enhancement, facts were deemed admitted); United States v.

McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir.) (Sixth Amendment is not violated when

sentence is enhanced based on facts admitted by defendant), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

305 (2005).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3647 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2006 Entry ID: 2087671