Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03429/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03429-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry A. Boyce
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3429

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff–Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Barry A. Boyce, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Defendant–Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 23, 2005 

Filed: July 5, 2005 (Corrected: 8/22/05)

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The government appeals a sentence imposed after the Supreme Court's

landmark decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), where the

district court chose not to apply sentencing enhancements, but otherwise imposed a

guideline sentence. The district court's sentencing decision came as a result of its

understandable, yet erroneous, belief the Blakely opinion prevented it from finding

the facts necessary to enhance Boyce's guideline imprisonment range. See 124 S. Ct.

at 2537 (holding that "the statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes is the maximum

sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury

verdict or admitted by the defendant"). Under the advisory regime articulated in

Appellate Case: 04-3429 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923793
-2-

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-69 (2005), which we apply to the present

case, id. at 769, nothing prohibits a judge from this practice. Id. at 750. Although

Boyce argues his sixty-three month sentence is nevertheless reasonable in view of the

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), an incorrect calculation of the guidelines precludes

review for reasonableness. See United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1014-15

(8th Cir. 2005) ("If the sentence was imposed as the result of an incorrect application

of the guidelines, we will remand for resentencing as required by 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(f)(1) without reaching the reasonableness of the resulting sentence in light of

§ 3553(a)".); United States v. Mathijssen, 406 F.3d 496, 498 (8th Cir. 2005) ([T]he

district court must continue to determine "the appropriate guidelines sentencing

range," as it did pre-Booker, before it considers the other factors in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)). We therefore vacate Boyce's sentence and remand to the district court for

resentencing.

____________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3429 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923793