Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02990/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02990-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley M. Mattix
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2990

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Stanley M. Mattix, *

* TO BE PUBLISHED

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 12, 2005

Filed: April 20, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Stanley M. Mattix was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and making false statements to acquire a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(6). He absconded from pretrial supervision but was

arrested outside the jurisdiction on an unrelated state charge. He then pled guilty to

both counts of the indictment.

Appellate Case: 04-2990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2005 Entry ID: 1893324
1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

At sentencing the district court1

 treated the guidelines as advisory. The court

calculated Mattix’s base offense level for each offense to be 14 and added a two level

enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, resulting in a total

offense level of 16. Mattix had a criminal history category of IV, and the advisory

sentencing range for each offense was 33 to 41 months. The court decided to impose

concurrent sentences of 38 months. Mattix appeals.

Mattix argues that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because a jury

should have decided beyond a reasonable doubt whether he obstructed justice, citing

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). In a motion for supplemental

briefing, he argues that he should be resentenced under a truly advisory system with

the guidance provided by United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and that

information about his prior convictions should have been submitted to a jury under

a reasonable doubt standard, citing Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254 (2005).

There was no error in this case because the district court recognized that the

guidelines were advisory and considered the facts and circumstances of the case as

Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756, commands. Courts have long considered prior criminal

history as a sentencing factor for the court rather than a fact issue for the jury,

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 243-44 (1998), and that principle

has been reaffirmed most recently in Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756; see also Blakely, 124

S. Ct. at 2536; Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, and it was not changed in Shepard.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the sentence imposed was not

unreasonable. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment

of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2005 Entry ID: 1893324