Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03565/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03565-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harry N. Hart
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3565

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, * Appeal From the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Harry N. Hart, * PUBLISHED

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 20, 2005

Filed: August 2, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Harry N. Hart pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The

district court1

 sentenced him to serve 36 months in prison. Hart appeals, arguing that

the district court imposed sentencing enhancements in violation of his Sixth

Amendment rights. We affirm.

Hart was indicted for and pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After entering a plea of guilty, a Presentence

Investigation Report (PSR) was prepared, which calculated his offense level at 17.

His criminal history category was set at IV, in part because he was subject to a twoAppellate Case: 04-3565 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2005 Entry ID: 1935128
-2-

point adjustment under United States Sentencing Guidelines section 4A1.1(e) because

Hart allegedly committed the offense less than two years after being released from

imprisonment for another offense.

During the sentencing hearing, Hart made several objections to the PSR,

including an objection to the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines. The

district court overruled all of Hart’s objections. Hart then moved for a downward

departure under United States Sentencing Guidelines section 4A1.3(b)(1) for

overstatement of criminal history. The district court granted the motion, reducing

Hart’s criminal history category from IV to III, resulting in a sentencing range of 30

to 37 months. The court imposed a sentence of 36 months.

Hart’s sentencing occurred after Blakely but before the Supreme Court’s

decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Under these

circumstances, Hart’s objection to the constitutionality of the guidelines preserves his

claim of Booker error. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005).

Unless the error is harmless, Hart is entitled to a remand for resentencing. 

A panel of this court recently addressed a similar situation in United States v.

Henderson, 408 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2005). In that case, the district court found that

category V substantially overrepresented Henderson’s criminal history and departed

downward, sentencing him as a category IV offender. Id. at 1079. Henderson, who

preserved his Booker challenge, argued on appeal that the district court erred in

imposing a sentence pursuant to the mandatory guidelines scheme. Our court noted

that the district court committed Booker error, but that it was harmless because

“Henderson received a downward departure to a reasonable sentence.” Id. 

Henderson controls our decision here. United States v. Mills, 375 F.3d 689,

691 n.4 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that one panel is bound by the decision of a prior

Appellate Case: 04-3565 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2005 Entry ID: 1935128
-3-

panel). Hart received a downward departure, and we cannot say the ultimate sentence

is unreasonable. Finding the remainder of Hart’s arguments unpersuasive, we affirm.

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, with whom MELLOY, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring.

I concur with the court’s opinion. However, I write separately to emphasize

that harmless error review of a Booker error under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure is separate and distinct from the reasonableness review mandated

by Booker. 

As in Henderson, the court’s opinion holds that the mandatory application of

the guidelines was harmless because Hart “received a downward departure to a

reasonable sentence.” I believe that implicit in our holding today, and in Henderson,

is an understanding that the district court, having properly departed downward, could

have departed to a lower reasonable sentence but, instead, chose to impose the

sentence it pronounced. Consequently, the government carried its burden of proving

that the district court would not have imposed a lower sentence under advisory

guidelines. I do not believe that Henderson or today’s decision should be read to

hold that the Booker error is harmless merely because the ultimate sentence is

reasonable. 

In this case, I would make the harmless error analysis more explicit. The

district court granted Hart’s motion for a downward departure (which the government

does not appeal) to a sentencing range of 30 to 37 months and imposed a sentence of

36 months. Because the court chose to impose a sentence at the higher end of an

appropriately calculated guidelines range when it was free to impose a lower sentence

within that range, I agree that the government has carried its burden of proving that

Hart would not have received a lower sentence under advisory guidelines.

Accordingly, I agree that the Booker error in this case was harmless.

Appellate Case: 04-3565 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/02/2005 Entry ID: 1935128
-4-

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3565 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/02/2005 Entry ID: 1935128