Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01338/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01338-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Warren Babiar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1338

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Warren Babiar, * 

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 19, 2004

 Resubmitted: June 1, 2005

 Filed: June 3, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Warren Babiar (Babiar) was convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana.

United States v. Babiar, 390 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir. 2004) (mandate recalled). At the

sentencing hearing, the district court1

 made findings of fact warranting a two-level

enhancement for obstruction of justice under United States Sentencing Guidelines

(Guidelines) § 3C1.1 (assessing Babiar’s trial testimony and concluding “I think he

lied” and “[t]he jury thought he lied”), and a four-level enhancement for Babiar’s

Appellate Case: 04-1338 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2005 Entry ID: 1911113 
-2-

aggravating role in the conspiracy under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) (finding Babiar was “an

organizer or leader of criminal activity that involved five or more participants”).

These sentencing enhancements increased Babiar’s base offense level by 6, resulting

in a total offense level of 34 and a sentencing range of 151 to 188 months’

imprisonment. The district court sentenced Babiar to 151 months’ imprisonment,

finding “the minimum sentence under the guidelines is adequate to fully serve all the

statutory purposes of sentencing.” 

Babiar appealed his conviction and sentence. Before oral argument on Babiar’s

appeal, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.

2531 (2004), which declared the State of Washington’s mandatory sentencing system

was unconstitutional. We affirmed Babiar’s conviction, but reserved ruling on the

applicability of Blakely to Babiar’s sentence until the Supreme Court decided United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Babiar, 390 F.3d at 599 n.2, 602. After the

Supreme Court issued its decision in Booker, which held the mandatory federal

Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment by requiring judges to enhance the

sentences of defendants based on facts not found by a jury or admitted by the

defendant, Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756, Babiar challenged the constitutionality of his

sentence in a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter. We now address

Babiar’s challenge to his sentencing enhancements. 

Citing Booker, Babiar contends the district court’s imposition of sentencing

enhancements for obstruction of justice and aggravating role violated his Sixth

Amendment rights, because the facts supporting these enhancements were not

admitted by Babiar nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Babiar

did not raise this argument in the district court, we review only for plain error. See

Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (en

banc).

Appellate Case: 04-1338 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2005 Entry ID: 1911113 
-3-

To establish plain error, Babiar must establish (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and

not only (3) affected Babiar’s substantial rights, but also (4) “seriously affect[ed] the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quoting Johnson

v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997)). The first two prongs are satisfied

where, as here, the district court treated the Guidelines as mandatory. Id. at 550. To

meet the third prong of the plain-error test, Babiar must show a “reasonable

probability” the district court would have imposed a more lenient sentence under the

now advisory Guidelines regime. Id. at 551. 

Babiar has not met his burden of demonstrating he suffered actual prejudice

from being sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines regime. Although the district

court sentenced Babiar at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range, the record

as a whole provides no basis for concluding the district court would have imposed a

lesser sentence had it deemed the Guidelines advisory. See id. at 553 (stating “where

the effect of the error on the result in the district court is uncertain or

indeterminate–where we would have to speculate–the appellant has not met his

burden of showing a reasonable probability that the result would have been different

but for the error”) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th

Cir. 2005)). The district court gave no indication at sentencing it wished to sentence

Babiar below the sentencing range, but could not because the mandatory Guidelines

prevented the court from doing so. On the contrary, the district court found the

sentence was “adequate to fully serve all the statutory purposes of sentencing.”

Accordingly, we hold Babiar failed to satisfy the third prong of plain-error analysis,

i.e., that the sentence imposed by the district court affected Babiar’s substantial rights.

Having previously affirmed Babiar’s conviction, we now affirm his sentence.

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1338 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/03/2005 Entry ID: 1911113