Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02782/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02782-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Henderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2782

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Victor Henderson, * 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2005

Filed: May 26, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Victor Henderson pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

50 grams or more of cocaine base from January 1, 2001 through August 30, 2003, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Based on Henderson's prior convictions, the presentence

investigation report calculated Henderson's criminal history at category V. The

district court1

 found that category V substantially over-represented the seriousness of

Henderson's criminal history. Departing downward, the district court sentenced

Appellate Case: 04-2782 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Entry ID: 1907637
-2-

Henderson as a category IV offender and imposed a sentence of 188 months'

imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. We affirm.

Henderson argues on this appeal, as he did in the district court, that because of

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), the jury, not the judge,

should have determined whether his prior convictions were related to the instant

offense. If related to the instant offense, the prior convictions could not be counted

against Henderson for purposes of criminal history point calculation. The United

States Sentencing Guidelines provide that "[p]rior sentences are not considered

related if they were for offenses that were separated by an intervening arrest."

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. n.3. The district court found that Henderson's prior convictions

were unrelated and consequently countable. Henderson contends that finding had to

be made by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

When Henderson was sentenced, the United States Supreme Court's decision

in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), was pending and it was unclear

whether and to what extent Blakely would apply to the United States Sentencing

Guidelines. The applicability of Blakely to the Guidelines is no longer in question.

In Booker, the Supreme Court instructed that under the federal sentencing guidelines,

"[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence

exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a

jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a

reasonable doubt." Id. at 756. The Court invalidated the Guidelines under the Sixth

Amendment to the extent that they were applied in a mandatory manner. Id. at 764.

While district courts are no longer bound to apply the Guidelines, the Guidelines must

be consulted and taken into account when sentencing. Id. at 767. Booker also

reaffirmed the exception in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), for prior

convictions. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756. See also Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct.

1254, 1262–63 (2005) (affirming Apprendi exception for prior convictions). 

Appellate Case: 04-2782 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Entry ID: 1907637
-3-

It is undisputed that the prior sentences used to determine Henderson's criminal

history level were separated by intervening arrests. Thus, the district court did not

make any factual findings which run afoul of the Sixth Amendment in determining

that Henderson's prior sentences were unrelated. The non-constitutional Booker

violation in this case, i.e., the district court's failure to treat the Guidelines as

advisory, was harmless as Henderson received a downward departure to a reasonable

sentence. The district court's sentence is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2782 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Entry ID: 1907637