Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03832/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03832-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Donald Ray Wallace
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3832

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Donald Ray Wallace, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 3, 2005

Filed: November 9, 2005 

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald Ray Wallace appeals the sentence the district court imposed after

Wallace pleaded guilty to distributing 5 or more grams of cocaine base, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Initially, the district court sentenced Wallace to 110 months

imprisonment, below his 188-255 months Guidelines range. On appeal, this court

remanded to the district court for resentencing within the Guidelines range after

concluding the downward departure was inappropriate. At resentencing, Wallace

raised an objection based on Blakely v. Washington, 524 U.S. 296 (2004). Believing

it was bound to sentence Wallace within the Guidelines range based on our decision,

the district court sentenced Wallace to 188 months in prison.

Appellate Case: 04-3832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2005 Entry ID: 1973125
-2-

In this appeal from resentencing, Wallace cites Blakely and United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and argues the district court committed error in

sentencing him under a mandatory Guidelines scheme and in classifying him as a

career offender based on earlier convictions not found by a jury. 

As we have previously held, the Sixth Amendment does not require the fact or

nature of a prior conviction to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt before

classifying a defendant as a career offender. See United States v. Marcussen, 403

F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 74 U.S.L.W. 3210 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2005)

(No. 05-5547). It was error, however, to sentence Wallace under a mandatory

Guidelines scheme, and because Wallace preserved the issue, we review to determine

whether the error was harmless. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th

Cir. 2005) (en banc) (Booker error preserved by, inter alia, raising Blakely), cert.

denied, 2005 WL 1811058 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2005); United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d

642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005) (preserved Booker error reviewed for harmless error).

At sentencing, the district court stated it felt bound by the Guidelines, and it believed

the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was “unreasonably punitive”; the

court also announced an alternative, lower sentence it would impose were it not

bound by the Guidelines. These comments demonstrate the error was not harmless.

Accordingly, we remand for resentencing. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3832 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2005 Entry ID: 1973125