Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04172/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Preston McMorris
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4172

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Preston McMorris, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 16, 2006

Filed: May 24, 2006 

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Preston McMorris appeals his sentence of 115 months, less fourteen months of

time served, for his conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g). We remand for resentencing with instructions.

McMorris was sentenced in November 2005, for conduct occurring in

December 2003. At oral argument, the parties agreed the district court erred in

applying the 2004 version of United States Sentencing Guideline (U.S.S.G.) § 2A2.1,

pertaining to Attempted Murder. 

Appellate Case: 05-4172 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Entry ID: 2048331
-2-

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii), a district court is required to sentence

using the Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing. As the commentary to

Guideline § 1B1.11 recognizes, “Congress did not believe that the ex post facto clause

would apply to amended sentencing guidelines.” Accordingly, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11

directs a sentencing court to apply the Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing

unless the court finds a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause in Article I § 9 of the

Constitution in so doing. If such a violation is found, the sentencing court is to apply

the Guidelines in effect at the time of the conduct underlying the conviction.

We have held an ex post facto violation occurs “if the defendant is sentenced

under the Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing when those Guidelines

produce a sentence harsher than one permitted under the Guidelines in effect at the

time the crime is committed.” United States v. Bell, 991 F.2d 1445, 1452 (8th Cir.

1993); see also United States v. Carter, 410 F.3d 1017, 1027 (8th Cir. 2005) (postBooker case). In the instant case, the Attempted Murder Guideline in effect at the

time the offense was committed provided a base offense level of 28 if the successful

offense would have constituted first degree murder, and 22 otherwise. Amendment

663, which became effective November 1, 2004, modified the Attempted Murder

Guideline to increase these base offense levels to 33 and 27, respectively. The district

court applied the Guideline provision as modified by Amendment 663. Because

applying the Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing could produce a sentence

harsher than a sentence under the Guidelines in effect at the time the offense was

committed, an ex post facto violation occurred. Under Bell and its progeny, the

district court was required to apply the Guidelines in effect at the time the offense was

committed. 

The parties agree the district court’s improper utilization of the 2004 version

of the Guidelines resulted in an incorrect calculation of the appropriate advisory

Guideline range which warrants a remand for resentencing. Because the district court

sentenced McMorris beyond the upper limit of the advisory range under the 2003

Appellate Case: 05-4172 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Entry ID: 2048331
-3-

version of the Guidelines, we agree the error is not harmless and remand is

appropriate. See United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005). 

The parties jointly request the district court, at resentencing, to make a finding

regarding McMorris’s mental state to make clear the district court’s basis for applying

the particular Guideline provision and cross-reference. We agree a finding as to

McMorris’s mental state would assist a reviewing court in determining whether the

correct Guideline provision was applied.

We therefore remand for resentencing and request the district court to make a

finding as to McMorris’s mental state in its resentencing proceedings.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4172 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2006 Entry ID: 2048331