Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02363/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02363-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas M. Gollhofer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2363

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Douglas M. Gollhofer, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 17, 2005

Filed: June 21, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Douglas Gollhofer pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession

of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). In sentencing Gollhofer, the

District Court1

 found that Gollhofer possessed a firearm in connection with another

felony offense and enhanced Gollhofer's base offense level by four pursuant to

§ 2K2.1(b)(5) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Gollhofer appeals the

enhancement to his sentence, arguing that it violated his Sixth Amendment rights.

We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 04-2363 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918101
-2-

After Gollhofer was sentenced and while his case was pending on appeal, the

Supreme Court ruled that the Guidelines ran afoul of the Sixth Amendment to the

extent that they required a sentencing judge to impose a sentence based on facts found

by the judge but not admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a

reasonable doubt. United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005). To remedy

this problem, the Court declared the Guidelines "effectively advisory." Id. at 757.

Now, "district courts, while not bound to apply the Guidelines, must consult those

Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing," together with the other

sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 767. 

Gollhofer argues that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the

fact underlying the § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement to his sentence (that he possessed a

firearm in connection with another felony) was neither alleged in the indictment nor

found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Gollhofer did not challenge the

constitutionality of the Guidelines before the District Court, we review for plain error.

See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 548 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). To obtain

relief, Gollhofer must show that the District Court committed error, that the error was

plain, and that the error affected Gollhofer's substantial rights. See United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Even if Gollhofer can show these three elements,

granting relief is within our discretion, and we will only act if failure to correct the

error would result in a miscarriage of justice or would seriously affect the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

 We conclude that the District Court committed no Sixth Amendment error in

calculating Gollhofer's Guidelines sentencing range. Gollhofer's felon-in-possession

charge stems from an incident that occurred on January 26, 2003. The presentence

investigation report (PSR) states that on that evening, Gollhofer had a verbal dispute

with his neighbor, Jim Erskin. After the dispute, Gollhofer retrieved a rifle from his

home and began walking in the direction of Erskin's residence. As he approached

Erskin's residence, Gollhofer fired a shot into the air to scare Erskin. Gollhofer then

Appellate Case: 04-2363 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918101
-3-

returned home. Pursuant to this incident, Gollhofer was charged with unlawful use

of a weapon in Missouri state court because he exhibited the rifle in an angry or

threatening manner in the presence of other persons. The Missouri court convicted

Gollhofer of unlawful use of a weapon on September 26, 2003. 

Gollhofer did not object to any of the facts presented in the PSR. Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(A) provides that a sentencing court "may accept any

undisputed portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact." "Therefore, a fact

in the PSR not specifically objected to is admitted for purposes of Booker." United

States v. McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 2005). By not objecting to the PSR,

Gollhofer admitted that he committed another felony offense, namely the unlawful

use of a weapon, in connection with his possession of the firearm. The District Court

did not violate Gollhofer's Sixth Amendment rights when it enhanced Gollhofer's

sentence based on facts that Gollhofer admitted.

The District Court did err, however, in applying the Guidelines as mandatory,

rather than advisory. See Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553 ("All sentences imposed by a

district court that mistakenly (though understandably) believed the Guidelines to be

mandatory contain Booker error."). But to obtain relief, Gollhofer must show that the

error affected his substantial rights in that there was a "reasonable probability that,

but for Booker error, [he] would have received a more favorable sentence under an

advisory guidelines regime." Id.

Gollhofer has an extensive history of felony convictions, which resulted in 22

criminal history points and placed him in criminal history category VI. With the

§ 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement to his sentence, which we have held proper, Gollhofer's

base offense level was 27, resulting in a Guidelines sentencing range of 168–210

months' imprisonment. The District Court sentenced Gollhofer to 120 months'

imprisonment, the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2000) (setting

maximum sentence); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(a) (2003) ("Where

Appellate Case: 04-2363 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918101
-4-

the statutorily authorized maximum sentence is less than the minimum of the

applicable guideline range, the statutorily authorized maximum sentence shall be the

guideline sentence."). After carefully reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude

that Gollhofer cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability that his sentence would

have been more favorable had the District Court been operating under advisory

Guidelines.

Gollhofer's sentence is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2363 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/21/2005 Entry ID: 1918101