Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01633/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01633-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesse E. Turnbull
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1633

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Jesse E. Turnbull, also known as *

Jesse E. Turnbough, * [TO BE PUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 8, 2003

Filed: July 18, 2005

___________

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

___________

PER CURIAM.

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

further consideration in light of its decision in Booker v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005). Booker held enhancements based upon judge-found facts under the

mandatory federal Sentencing Guidelines violate the Sixth Amendment. To remedy

the problem, the Supreme Court struck down the statutory provisions which made the

Guidelines mandatory, the effect of which was to "make[] the Guidelines effectively

advisory." Id. at 757.

Appellate Case: 03-1633 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2005 Entry ID: 1929012
1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

In this case, Jesse Turnbull's fifty-one month sentence for being an unlawful

user of controlled substances in possession of a firearm was based in part upon a

mandatory enhancement which violated the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, the

district court1

 found Turnbull possessed between eight and twenty-four firearms as

part of the offense, triggering a four-level enhancement in Turnbull's offense level

under United States Sentencing Guideline (U.S.S.G.) § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B). Turnbull

never challenged the enhancement in the district court on Sixth Amendment grounds,

however, and thus we review for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).

Under plain error review, Turnbull must show a "reasonable probability that

he would have received a more favorable sentence with the Booker error eliminated

by making the Guidelines advisory." United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 551 (8th

Cir. 2005) (en banc). We have reviewed the sentencing transcript and conclude

Turnbull cannot show by a reasonable probability he would have received a more

favorable sentence if the Guidelines were advisory. Although the district court

sentenced him at the low end of the applicable guideline range, that fact standing

alone is "insufficient . . . to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the court would

have imposed a lesser sentence absent the Booker error." Id. at 553. 

Having found no plain error, we reinstate our prior opinion and once again

affirm Turnbull's judgment of conviction and sentence in all respects.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1633 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2005 Entry ID: 1929012