Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03218/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David D. Henson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3218

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

David D. Henson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 2, 2005 

Filed: December 27, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found David Henson guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and Henson appeals the resulting 188-month

sentence imposed by the district court. On appeal, counsel moved to withdraw and

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Henson’s

sentence was excessive and that Henson should not have been classified as an armed

career criminal (ACC). We denied counsel’s motion and ordered supplemental

briefing in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). In a supplemental

brief, counsel argues that the district court erred by treating the Guidelines as

mandatory at Henson’s pre-Booker sentencing.

Appellate Case: 04-3218 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2005 Entry ID: 1989918
-2-

We reject counsel’s Anders brief arguments. First, Henson was properly

classified as an ACC because he has at least three prior felony convictions for violent

crimes or serious drug offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a).

Specifically, Henson’s criminal history includes two Missouri state convictions for

second-degree burglaries, see United States v. Nolan, 397 F.3d 665, 666-67 (8th Cir.)

(second-degree burglary is predicate offense under § 924(e)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

195 (2005), and a conviction for possessing with intent to distribute 145 grams of

marijuana, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) (serious drug offense is “an offense under

State law, involving . . . possessing with intent to . . . distribute, a controlled substance

. . . for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by

law”); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 195.211 and 558.011 (2000) (possessing more than 5 grams

of marijuana with intent to deliver is Class B felony punishable by imprisonment of

5-15 years). We also conclude that Henson’s sentence is not excessive. See United

States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Amendment forbids only

extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime); United States v.

Johnson, 22 F.3d 674, 682-83 (6th Cir. 1994) (15-year sentence imposed on defendant

as ACC on basis of prior convictions was not grossly disproportionate to status

offense of being felon in possession of firearm, and was not cruel and unusual

punishment under Eighth Amendment).

The Booker challenge to the sentence is valid, however, because the district

court erred in sentencing Henson under a mandatory Guidelines scheme, see Booker,

125 S. Ct. at 756-57 (holding Guidelines to be only advisory), and Henson preserved

this issue at sentencing, see United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir.) (en

banc) (Booker error preserved by, inter alia, raising Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.

296 (2004)), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005). We conclude further that the

government did not meet its burden of proving that the error was harmless: Henson

was sentenced at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range, and nothing in the

record suggests that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under

an advisory system. See United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 04-3218 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2005 Entry ID: 1989918
-3-

2005). Thus, we must remand for the district court to fashion a reasonable sentence

under advisory Guidelines. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765-66.

Accordingly, we vacate Henson’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3218 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/27/2005 Entry ID: 1989918