Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01953/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01953-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Beltran-Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1953

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Francisco Beltran-Hernandez, * 

also known as El Gordo, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: May 23, 2005

Filed: August 8, 2005

___________

Before BYE, HEANEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the order of the United States Supreme Court in Beltran-Hernandez

v. U.S., 125 S. Ct. 1053 (2005), vacating our judgment and remanding this case, we

review for error under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Because

Beltran-Hernandez failed to raise a Booker-type issue below, we apply the plain error

standard under United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005), and finding

none, we reaffirm our prior opinion with regard to Beltran-Hernandez. 

Appellate Case: 03-1953 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2005 Entry ID: 1937347 
-2-

HEANEY, Circuit Judge, concurring.

I continue to believe that a defendant's challenge to the factual basis for a

sentence enhancement preserves his Sixth Amendment sentencing claim. See United

States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 555-62 (en banc) (Heaney, J., dissenting). Moreover,

I adhere to the view stated by Judge Bye in Pirani that defendants who did not

properly preserve their Booker claims in the district court are nonetheless generally

entitled to resentencing under a constitutional regime. Pirani, 406 F.3d at 562-67

(Bye, J., dissenting). Because a majority of our court held to the contrary on both

counts, however, I concur.

 

BYE, Circuit Judge, concurring.

For the reasons articulated in my dissent in United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d

543, 562-67 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (Bye, J., dissenting), I join Judge Heaney in

“adher[ing] to the view that defendants who did not properly preserve their Booker

claims in the district court are nonetheless entitled to resentencing under a

constitutional regime.” Like Judge Heaney, however, I recognize we are bound by

the holding of our en banc court, and I therefore concur. 

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 03-1953 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2005 Entry ID: 1937347