Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07066/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Dean Creel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAYS 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

V. No. 04-7066 

MICHAEL DEAN CREEL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 03-CR-106-W) 

(E.D.Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant Michael Creel pied guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l), and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 

ninety-seven months. On appeal, Creel asserts, as he did below, that the district court 

erred in enhancing his sentence on the basis of judicially-found facts. Exercising 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we remand for resentencing. 

*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of 

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the 

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under 

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

1 

Appellate Case: 04-7066 Document: 010110617243 Date Filed: 05/05/2005 Page: 1
I. 

Following his indictment on two firearm-related charges and two drug-related 

charges, Creel pied guilty to a single count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l). At the time of his guilty plea, Creel admitted nothing 

other than the essential elements of the § 922(g)( 1) charge. A presentence report (PSR) 

was subsequently prepared which recommended that Creel's base offense level be 

enhanced by four levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.l(b)(5) because Creel had used or 

possessed the firearms at issue in connection with another felony offense. App. at 23. In 

support of this recommendation, the PSR alleged as follows: 

Available evidence in this case indicates the defendant was at the residence 

of [ a third party] for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine. 

During the execution of a search warrant at [the third party's] residence, the 

defendant was observed pulling two guns out of his pocket as law 

enforcement officials approached. Furthermore, law enforcement officials 

discovered two additional firearms in the cab of the defendant's vehicle. 

On June 29, 2004, Creel objected to the proposed enhancement, arguing that it was 

improper in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 

2531 (2004 ). App. at 30. Creel further argued that, in light of Blakely, the district court 

was limited to sentencing him based solely on the facts he admitted to in his guilty plea, 

thereby resulting in a total offense level of 23 and a guideline range of 57-71 months. Id. 

Creel repeated his objections at the sentencing hearing, which was held the following day, 

June 30, 2004. Id. at 33-34. The district court rejected Creel's objections, concluding 

2 

Appellate Case: 04-7066 Document: 010110617243 Date Filed: 05/05/2005 Page: 2
that the federal sentencing guidelines were not impacted by Blakely. Id. at 35. The 

district court in tum adopted the PSR's recommendations, applied the§ 2K2.l(b)(5) 

enhancement, and sentenced Creel to a tenn of imprisonment of ninety-seven months. 

II. 

While this case was pending on appeal, the Supreme Court issued its decision in 

United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), extending its holding in Blakely to the 

United States Sentencing Guidelines, and holding that the Sixth Amendment requires 

"[ 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." 

Id. at 756. To remedy the Sixth Amendment violation inherent in the guidelines, the 

Court severed and excised 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(l), which required sentencing courts to 

impose a sentence within the applicable guidelines range, subject to departures in limited 

cases. Id. at 764-65. As a result, the guidelines are now advisory in all cases. Id. at 757. 

In light of Booker, it is clear that the district court in this case erred in imposing 

the§ 2K2.l(b)(5) enhancement to Creel's sentence on the basis of judicially-found facts. 

Because Creel timely asserted a Blakely-based objection to the§ 2K2.l(b)(5) 

enhancement, we now review that enhancement for hannless error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 

52(a). As the "beneficiary" of the constitutional error in this case, the government bears 

the burden of establishing harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. 

3 

Appellate Case: 04-7066 Document: 010110617243 Date Filed: 05/05/2005 Page: 3
California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). Because, however, the government has made no 

attempt to establish harmlessness, we have no choice but to remand the case for 

resentencing pursuant to Booker. See United States v. Lang. No. 04-4165, 2005 WL 

834669, at *4 (10th Cir. Apr. 12, 2005). 

The case is hereby REMANDED to the district court for resentencing in light of 

Booker. 

4 

Entered for the Court 

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-7066 Document: 010110617243 Date Filed: 05/05/2005 Page: 4