Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03840/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03840-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawn Lee Drinnon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3840

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern 

* District of Iowa. 

Shawn Lee Drinnon, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 2006

Filed: June 16, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Shawn Lee Drinnon was convicted of conspiracy to distribute less than 50

grams of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(C), and 846. The district court1

 found that Drinnon was personally

involved with at least 255.15 grams and sentenced him under a mandatory guidelines

regime to 109 months. Drinnon appealed, and we remanded the case for resentencing

Appellate Case: 05-3840 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057385
-2-

in accordance with Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), based on the

violation of the Sixth Amendment at sentencing. See United States v. Drinnon, 139

Fed. Appx. 761 (2005) (Drinnon I). On remand the district court resentenced

Drinnon to 109 months, and he appeals, challenging the district court's independent

determination of the drug quantity involved and alleging that the retroactive

application of Booker to his case violates the ex post facto clause. 

Drinnon argues that the district court violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

by substituting its finding of drug quantity for that of the jury verdict and that his

sentence is unreasonable. We upheld the court's quantity determination in Drinnon's

first appeal, see Drinnon I at 762, and we affirm that determination as the law of the

case since sentencing facts do not need to be found by a jury. See United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005). Drinnon's sentence falls within the

guideline range and is therefore presumptively reasonable. See United States v.

Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005). Under all the circumstances we conclude

that his sentence was not unreasonable. 

Drinnon further asserts that sentencing under an advisory guideline scheme in

his case violated the ex post facto clause because he had a valid expectation that he

would be sentenced under a mandatory regime. Being sentenced under the advisory

guidelines does not "implicate either ex post facto or due process principles",

however. See United States v. Jones, 440 F.3d 927, 929 (8th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, we affirm the amended judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3840 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057385