Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03143/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03143-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leo William Anderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3143

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Leo William Anderson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 4, 2005

Filed: November 17, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leo William Anderson (Anderson) appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court upon his guilty plea to conspiring with others to distribute at least 50 grams of

a mixture or substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 846. Anderson objected to a role enhancement, arguing Blakely v. Washington,

542 U.S. 296 (2004), required the role enhancement be based on a jury’s factual

determination. The district court overruled the objection, finding Blakely did not

affect the Guidelines; calculated a Guidelines imprisonment range of 262 to 327

months (which included a role enhancement); and pronounced an initial sentence of

262 months in prison. Upon the government’s substantial-assistance motion, the

Appellate Case: 04-3143 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2005 Entry ID: 1975814
1

The departure for substantial assistance did not render the Booker error

harmless. See United States v. Turnbough, 425 F.3d 1112, 1115 (8th Cir. 2005)

(granting substantial-assistance motion does not render Booker error harmless).

-2-

court stated 52 months was an appropriate reduction, and reduced the sentence to 210

months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Anderson renews

his Blakely argument.

The district court sentenced Anderson under a mandatory Guidelines system.

This was error under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005), and

Anderson preserved the error, see United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir.

2005) (en banc) (Booker error preserved by, inter alia, raising Blakely), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 266 (2005). Thus, we review for harmless error. See United States v.

Archuleta, 412 F.3d 1003, 1005-06 (8th Cir. 2005). The government has the burden

to prove the error was harmless, and must show the error did not affect Anderson’s

substantial rights–i.e., the district court would have imposed the same sentence under

advisory Guidelines. See id. at 1006-07.

The government fails to convince us the error was harmless. Anderson was

initially sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range, and the government has

pointed to nothing in the record that shows the district court would have imposed the

same sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme. See United States v. Haidley,

400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding not harmless district court’s error in

imposing sentence under mandatory Guidelines scheme where court sentenced

defendant to bottom of Guidelines range and record did not allow appeals court to

“say with any confidence” that sentence would have been same if district court had

treated Guidelines as advisory).1

 Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3143 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2005 Entry ID: 1975814