Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03202/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03202-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Edward Bassett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3202

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Brian Edward Bassett, *

C [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 21, 2005

Filed: May 6, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Brian Bassett appeals the 90-month sentence the district court1

 imposed after

he pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2), and transporting and shipping child pornography in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(1) and (b)(1). Bassett argues that the district

court committed reversible error by applying--over his objection under Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2536-43 (2004)--certain sentence enhancements based

on facts that were neither admitted nor proved to a jury. 

Appellate Case: 04-3202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2005 Entry ID: 1900011
-2-

The Supreme Court recently decided that the reasoning in Blakely applies to

the federal Sentencing Guidelines, and “[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction)

which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the

facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the

defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” See United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005). Here, because the supporting facts were not

admitted or proved to a jury, application of the challenged enhancements violated

Bassett’s Sixth Amendment rights. The district court, however, announced an

alternative (though identical) 90-month sentence, which the court stated was based

on the use of its discretion after “consider[ing] all of the factors set forth at 18 [U.S.C.

§] 3553(a).” (Sent. Tr. at 58-59.) We therefore conclude that the Sixth Amendment

error did not affect the ultimate sentence and was harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 124 S. Ct. 2333, 2339 (2004) (error

affects substantial rights if it has prejudicial effect on outcome of judicial

proceeding); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1999) (for all preserved

constitutional errors other than “very limited class” determined to be “structural,”

reviewing court must disregard all errors that are harmless beyond reasonable doubt;

error is harmful if it affects substantial rights). Further, Bassett’s sentence was not

unreasonable. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764-67.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3202 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2005 Entry ID: 1900011