Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02762/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02762-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Claude Leatham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2688

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

George Edward Dobbs, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Appeals from the United States

No. 03-2762 District Court for the

___________ District of Minnesota.

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Raymond Claude Leatham, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 4, 2005

Filed: May 27, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BRIGHT, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 03-2762 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908419 
1

United States v. Dobbs, 105 Fed. Appx. 132 (8th Cir. 2004).

2

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

-2-

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

This case is before us following the order of the Supreme Court remanding the

case to us for reconsideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005).

In our prior opinion1

 we affirmed the judgment of the district court2 finding the

appellants, Leatham and Dobbs, guilty of mail fraud and sentencing each appellant

to be imprisoned for thirty-four months and to pay restitution. In that opinion, we

rejected appellants’ argument that the verdict was not supported by substantial

evidence. We again reject that argument, for the reasons stated in our prior opinion.

We consider now the issues raised by the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker.

 The Supreme Court held in Booker, first, that a court violates the Sixth Amendment

when it makes a factual finding, other than as to the fact of a prior conviction, that

increases the statutorily prescribed maximum sentence the defendant may be given.

Id., at 749-50. The district court made no such findings in these cases, so there is no

constitutional violation here.

The Supreme Court held in Booker, second, that the statutory provisions

purporting to make the sentencing guidelines mandatory are invalid. Id. at 759-60.

The guidelines thus are advisory. The district court sentenced both appellants under

the mandatory sentencing guidelines. The court thereby erred, though the error did

not violate the appellants’ Sixth Amendment rights. Because the appellants did not

object to the error, however, we review for plain error. United States v. Pirani, No.

03-2871, 2005 WL 1039976 (8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2005).

Appellate Case: 03-2762 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908419 
3

As noted in Pirani, other federal appellate courts have adopted a less

restrictive view of plain error review under Booker than the rule established in this

circuit in Pirani. This panel is obligated to apply the Pirani rule unless and until the

Supreme Court resolves the conflicting rules of the circuits contrary to our approach.

-3-

We have held that sentencing error established under Booker does not warrant

relief under the plain error standard unless there is some affirmative indication in the

record – beyond a sentence at the bottom of the appropriate sentencing guideline

range – that the sentencing judge would have imposed a more lenient sentence if the

judge had understood the guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory. Pirani, 2005

WL 1039976 at *6-7. We have searched the record in these cases – including the

transcript of the sentencing hearings – and we find no such affirmative indication.

Under the Pirani plain error standard, therefore, we may not vacate the sentences and

remand for resentencing.3

Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2762 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908419