Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03322/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03322-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Anthony Petri
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Court for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3322

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

David Anthony Petri, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 14, 2005

Filed: November 22, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Anthony Petri pleaded guilty to eighteen counts of mail fraud and bank

fraud. Petri later moved to withdraw his guilty plea based on the Supreme Court’s

post-plea decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Petri disagreed

with the loss amount found in the presentence report and argued during the sentencing

hearing that he had a right to have that amount found by a jury. The district court*

found the applicable Guidelines range was below the statutory maximum sentence that

could be imposed based on Petri’s admissions at the change-of-plea hearing and thus

Appellate Case: 04-3322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977669
-2-

the court concluded Blakely had no impact on Petri’s case. The court denied Petri’s

motion, treated the Guidelines as mandatory, and sentenced Petri at the top of the

Guidelines range to seventy-eight months in prison. 

Petri appeals arguing the mandatory application of the Guidelines violated

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). In Booker, the Court held the

Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment in requiring sentencing courts to find

certain facts and thus impose a more severe sentence than could have been imposed

based on facts found by a jury or admitted by the defendant. See United States v. Red

Elk, No. 03-3069, 2005 WL 2585708, at *1 (8th Cir. Oct. 14, 2005). As a remedy, the

Court concluded the Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory. Id. In this case,

there was no Sixth Amendment violation because Petri’s sentence enhancements were

based on his own admissions. The only error was the district court’s treatment of the

guidelines as a mandatory sentencing scheme rather than advisory.

Because Petri raised Blakely at sentencing, we review the error for

harmlessness. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

To prove a nonconstitutional error is harmless, the government has the burden to show

there is no “grave doubt” about whether the error substantially influenced the outcome

of the sentencing proceedings. United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th

Cir. 2005); see Red Elk, 2005 WL 2585708, at * 2. Since the district court sentenced

Petri at the top of the sentencing range despite defense counsel’s arguments for a

lower sentence, the government can meet its burden in this case. See Red Elk, 2005

WL 2585708, at *2-3. Further, Petri’s sentence is reasonable under the factors set out

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765-66.

Accordingly, we affirm Petri’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2005 Entry ID: 1977669