Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02588/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02588-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dale D. Mitchell Jr.
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Theodore McMillian died on January 18, 2006. This opinion

is filed by the remaining members of the panel pursuant to 8th Circuit Rule 47E.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2588

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Dale D. Mitchell, Jr., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

__________

Submitted: April 14, 2006

Filed: April 28, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN,1

 and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration

in light of Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Having reconsidered Dale

D. Mitchell Jr.’s (Mitchell) sentence as directed by the Court, we reinstate our prior

panel opinion and affirm Mitchell’s sentence.

Appellate Case: 03-2588 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2006 Entry ID: 2038610 
2

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

3

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

4

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

-2-

The facts of this case are set forth in United States v. Mitchell, 109 Fed. App’x

833 (8th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (per curiam), cert. granted, judgment vacated by

126 S. Ct. 634 (2005), and we repeat and supplement the facts here only as relevant

to Mitchell’s Booker claim.

Mitchell pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He entered into a written plea

agreement and stipulated to a base offense level of 20 and a 4-level increase for

possession of the firearm in connection with another felony offense. He further

(1) agreed not to appeal or “otherwise challenge the constitutionality or legality of the

Sentencing Guidelines”; (2) acknowledged the district court’s2

 jurisdiction and

authority to impose any sentence up to the 10-year statutory maximum; and

(3) waived his right to appeal his sentence unless the district court imposed an upward

departure, exceeded the statutory maximum, or violated the law apart from the

Guidelines. The district court, consistent with the written plea agreement and the

Presentence Investigation Report’s (PSR) recommendations, determined Mitchell’s

total offense level was 21 (which included a 3-level adjustment for acceptance of

responsibility). At criminal history category VI, Mitchell’s sentencing range was 77

to 96 months. The district court sentenced Mitchell to 86 months’ imprisonment and

3 years’ supervised release.

“The argument that a Booker error occurred is preserved if the defendant below

argued Apprendi3

 or Blakely4 error or that the Guidelines were unconstitutional.”

United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (citations and quotation

Appellate Case: 03-2588 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2006 Entry ID: 2038610 
-3-

omitted), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005). Mitchell made no objection upon

receiving his PSR. At Mitchell’s sentencing hearing, Mitchell acknowledged he

reviewed the PSR with counsel and had no objections to the report. When the district

court offered him the opportunity for allocution, Mitchell simply expressed his

remorse. We conclude Mitchell did not preserve a Booker error argument. We

therefore review Mitchell’s sentence for plain error. Id. at 550.

We find no plain error by the district court, given Mitchell waived his right to

have a jury determine the enhancement issue by stipulating to the 4-level increase in

his plea agreement, did not object to the PSR’s description of the offense conduct

(aggravated assault), acknowledged the district court’s authority to impose the

sentence, and waived his appeal right. See United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031,

1034-35 (8th Cir.) (concluding the right to appeal under Booker is among the rights

waived by a broad appeal waiver, even if defendant did not anticipate the Booker

ruling), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 469 (2005); United States v. Killgo, 397 F.3d 628, 629

n.2 (8th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, we affirm Mitchell’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2588 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2006 Entry ID: 2038610