Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01406/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01406-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Dwayne Dunning
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1406

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Gary Dwayne Dunning, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

__________

Submitted: November 14, 2005

Filed: December 30, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gary Dwayne Dunning (Dunning) appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court1

 following his plea of guilty to one count of knowingly distributing more than

five grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.

At the sentencing hearing, the district court found Dunning was a career

offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, based on his prior convictions for burglary of

a residence and possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and enhanced

Appellate Case: 05-1406 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2005 Entry ID: 1991621
-2-

Dunning’s total offense level by six levels. Dunning had twenty-two criminal history

points establishing a criminal history category of VI. Dunning did not object to the

Presentence Report or its calculations. The district court granted a three-level

reduction in offense level in response to the government’s downward departure

motion.

Because sentencing occurred after the Supreme Court’s decision in United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the district court stated it was

not bound by the Guidelines and considered them advisory. The district court then

sentenced Dunning to 120 months’ imprisonment, twenty months below the low end

of the Guidelines’ 140- to 175-month range.

Dunning appeals, arguing the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right

under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and Booker, by finding facts

supporting application of the career offender Guideline rather than submitting those

facts to a jury for determination. We review a challenged sentence for

unreasonableness, judging the sentence in light of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 767; United States v. Yahnke, 395 F.3d 823, 824 (8th Cir.

2005).

Dunning claims the district court improperly found facts regarding Dunning’s

“propensity for violence and the perceived lack of prison time served.” On the

contrary, the district court merely found Dunning had two prior convictions

supporting application of the career offender Guideline. Dunning does not dispute

the existence of these prior convictions. Booker instructs that a district court need not

submit the fact of a prior conviction to a jury to support a sentence. Booker, 125 S.

Ct. at 756; see also Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).

Accordingly, there was no Sixth Amendment violation in applying the Guidelines.

Appellate Case: 05-1406 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2005 Entry ID: 1991621
-3-

The district court reduced Dunning’s sentence twenty months below the

advisory Guideline range based on its belief the career offender enhancement unfairly

over-penalized Dunning. The district court referenced (1) the “borderline on the drug

amount” and (2) the difference between a Guidelines career offender and an offender

of the statutory Armed Career Criminal Act. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Reviewing the

record in light of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we conclude the

district court did not commit error and Dunning’s sentence is reasonable. See United

States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Dunning’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1406 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/30/2005 Entry ID: 1991621