Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02665/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02665-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher M. Gaucin
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2665

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Christopher M. Gaucin, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 11, 2008

 Filed: March 20, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher M. Gaucin appeals from the sentence imposed by the District

Court1

 upon Gaucin's conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm. We affirm.

On March 5, 2007, Gaucin pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession charge. His

presentence report (PSR) detailed a calculated Guidelines sentencing range of

seventy-seven to ninety-six months in prison. In his written objections to the PSR and

at his sentencing hearing on June 28, 2007, Gaucin asked the District Court to reduce

Appellate Case: 07-2665 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2008 Entry ID: 3414912
2

The amendment to § 4A1.2(a) did become effective on November 1, 2007.

-2-

his criminal history points based on a pending Guidelines amendment that would

change the definition of "related cases" for purposes of calculating criminal history.

The court said it would not consider an amendment that would not be effective, if at

all, until November 1, 2007. The District Court sentenced Gaucin at the low end of

the Guidelines sentencing range to eighty months of imprisonment.

On appeal, Gaucin argues that his sentence is unreasonable. He contends that

the proposed amendment to United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(a)

was a factor carrying "significant weight" that the District Court was required to

consider. See United States v. Sanchez, 508 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2007). He asserts

this to be true regardless of whether the pending amendment ever became effective

because it reflected the Sentencing Commission's careful consideration of various

viewpoints.2

 But absent an ex post facto problem, the District Court was obligated to

apply the Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing. United States v. Adams, 509

F.3d 929, 932 n.4 (8th Cir. 2007). Moreover, if the amendment were applied, it

appears that Gaucin would not have been eligible for a reduction in criminal history

points to the extent that he claims because at least some of the crimes at issue are not

"related" even under § 4A1.2(a) as amended. Finally, the reduction in criminal history

points that Gaucin seeks would not have been sufficient to change the criminal history

category used to calculate his Guidelines sentence, so the Guidelines sentencing range

would have been the same. We hold that Gaucin's sentence was reasonable and the

District Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing it. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2665 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2008 Entry ID: 3414912