Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03727/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03727-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony M. Adams
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3727

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Anthony M. Adams, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 17, 2005

Filed: November 23, 2005 

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Adams appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) by distributing crack

cocaine and heroin and possessing heroin and cocaine with intent to distribute. For

reversal, Mr. Adams argues that the district court violated Blakely v. Washington,

542 U.S. 296 (2004), by calculating his base offense level using drug quantities from

uncharged and unadmitted conduct and by applying the career-offender Guideline,

which required a factual finding on the nature of his prior convictions. Mr. Adams

Appellate Case: 04-3727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2005 Entry ID: 1978085
-2-

also argues the evidence does not support the drug quantities necessary for a base

offense level of 34.

While Mr. Adams’s Blakely argument is valid with respect to the drug

quantities, see United States v. Engler, 422 F.3d 692, 696 (8th Cir. 2005) (court's use,

in context of mandatory Guidelines system, of drug quantities not found by jury or

admitted by defendant was error under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005)), the error was harmless. The district court arrived at the same offense

level--34--for the alternative reason that Mr. Adams had the necessary prior

convictions to be a career offender, a conclusion the court could properly reach

without implicating the Sixth Amendment. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) (offense levels

for career offenders); United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2005)

(holding that district court, not jury, determines whether prior convictions subject

defendant to sentencing as career offender), cert. denied, 74 U.S.L.W. 3230 (U.S.

Oct. 11, 2005 (No. 05-6173)). 

The error in treating the Guidelines as mandatory was harmless as well. The

district court sentenced Mr. Adams at neither the top nor the bottom of the calculated

Guidelines range and did not indicate it would have imposed a more favorable

sentence under advisory Guidelines. See United States v. Perez-Ramirez, 415 F.3d

876, 878 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding error harmless where district court "left unused

some of its discretion to sentence [defendant] to a more favorable sentence under the

mandatory, pre-Booker guidelines"). We conclude that the sentence, which the court

based partly on Mr. Adams’s extensive criminal history, was not unreasonable. See

United States v. Shannon, 414 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence was

reasonable with regard to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that district court considered,

including criminal history).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2005 Entry ID: 1978085