Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01838/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01838-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven E. Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

Following remand of this case by the United States Supreme Court, the

Honorable Kermit E. Bye was appointed to replace the Honorable Richard S. Arnold,

an original member of this panel, who died on September 23, 2004. 

2

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1838

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Steven E. Smith, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 23, 2005 

Filed: August 29, 2006

___________

Before BYE1

 and RILEY, Circuit Judges, and HOVLAND,2 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

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

reconsideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Steven E.

Appellate Case: 03-1838 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2006 Entry ID: 2083367 
3

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

-2-

Smith (Smith) appeals the 74-month sentence the district court3

 imposed following his

guilty plea to credit card fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5), (b)(1), and

(c)(1)(A)(ii). For reversal, Smith argues the district court erred by sentencing him

using the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory in violation of Booker.

Because Smith never raised any Sixth Amendment issue or objected to the

district court’s mandatory application of the Guidelines during sentencing, we review

his sentence for plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir.)

(en banc), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005). The district court (understandably)

committed error by sentencing Smith under a mandatory Guidelines scheme.

However, this error was not prejudicial because the record does not show any

reasonable probability Smith would have received a more favorable sentence under

an advisory Guidelines scheme. 

After determining the applicable Guidelines range was 59 to 74 months, the

district court imposed a sentence at the top of the Guidelines range. In doing so, the

district court referred to the 74-month sentence as “the very top sentence that I can

give under the [Guidelines] computations.” Smith cannot establish he would have

received a more favorable sentence when the district court, sentencing him under a

mandatory Guidelines scheme, did not use what discretion it had to sentence Smith

to a lower term of imprisonment within the properly-calculated Guidelines range. See

United States v. Davis, 442 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding the defendant

failed to demonstrate, for purposes of plain error review, that he would have received

a more favorable sentence where the sentence imposed was at the top of the

Guidelines range). 

Appellate Case: 03-1838 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2006 Entry ID: 2083367 
-3-

Because the district court’s statement and imposed sentence do not support a

finding of prejudice, we conclude Smith has not demonstrated plain error warranting

relief. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1838 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/29/2006 Entry ID: 2083367