Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01613/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01613-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tiffany Manning
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1613

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v.. * District of Arkansas.

*

Tiffany Manning, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 27, 2005

Filed: December 30, 2005 

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The government appeals the sentence imposed on Tiffany Manning after

Manning pleaded guilty to interstate transportation of stolen firearms. We vacate the

sentence and remand for resentencing. 

In calculating Manning’s advisory sentencing range under the federal

Sentencing Guidelines, the district court interpreted United States v. Booker, 125 S.

Ct. 738 (2005), as prohibiting the imposition of any sentencing enhancements not

based on facts admitted by Manning or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have previously specifically rejected such an interpretation. See United States v.

Appellate Case: 05-1613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2005 Entry ID: 1991605
-2-

Salter, 418 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003

(8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). Manning’s advisory Guidelines

range would have been significantly higher had the district court imposed the

enhancements recommended by the presentence report, and nothing in the record

suggests that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had it properly

applied the Guidelines and Booker. Accordingly, the error was not harmless, and

remand is appropriate. See United States v. Garcia-Juarez, 421 F.3d 655, 657-59 (8th

Cir. 2005) (although Guidelines are now advisory, sentence imposed as result of

incorrect application of Guidelines requires remand for resentencing unless error was

harmless; error in failing to impose enhancement when calculating Guidelines range

was not harmless because imposition of enhancement “would have significantly

increased” defendant’s Guidelines range); United States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080,

1082 (8th Cir. 2005) (post-Booker, if district court incorrectly applied Guidelines,

this court will remand unless error was harmless, such as when district court would

have imposed same sentence absent error).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2005 Entry ID: 1991605