Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03459/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03459-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Manfre
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3459

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Kevin Manfre, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2005

Filed: April 12, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal after remand, Kevin Manfre challenges the

sentence the district court imposed after a jury found him guilty of criminal offenses

arising from the blowing up of a nightclub he owned. Mr. Manfre received a sentence

calculated under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that sentence

enhancements he received for obstruction of justice and for his role in the offense

violate his Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531

(2004).

Appellate Case: 04-3459 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2005 Entry ID: 1889716
-2-

During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court held in United States

v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 755-56 (2005), that the reasoning in Blakely applies to the

federal Sentencing Guidelines, and therefore that "any 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 ... must be admitted by the

defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." The sentence enhancement

for obstruction of justice--which was not based on facts established by a jury or

admitted to by Mr. Manfre--violated Mr. Manfre's constitutional rights as interpreted

by Booker; and Mr. Manfre preserved the Sixth Amendment argument below. See

Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765; United States v. Adams, Nos. 03-2137, 03-1305, 2005 WL

646370, at *11 (8th Cir. Mar. 22, 2005) (defendant preserved Sixth Amendment

argument by raising objection to his sentence below based on Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); vacating sentence and remanding for resentencing in

accordance with Booker).

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand to the district court so that

Mr. Manfre may be sentenced in accordance with Booker.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3459 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2005 Entry ID: 1889716