Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01638/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01638-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1638

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

* 

Michael Jackson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: March 3, 2005

Filed: February 3, 2006 

___________

Before BYE, LAY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court vacated our prior judgment in this case and remanded the

matter to us to reconsider in light of United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct.

738 (2005). Booker held that sentences imposed under the then mandatory United

States Sentencing Guidelines, applying judge-found facts to enhance sentences,

violated the Sixth Amendment rights of criminal defendants. Id. at 756. The Court's

remedy was to make the Guidelines effectively advisory. Id. at 756–57. The Court

instructed us to apply ordinary jurisprudential principles such as harmless error and

plain error in determining whether a remand was appropriate for cases appealed prior

to Booker. Id. at 769. Post Booker, we have reviewed new sentences for

Appellate Case: 03-1638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2006 Entry ID: 2005561 
-2-

reasonableness and in pre-Booker cases we have routinely ordered remands where the

defendant either raised a Sixth Amendment argument before the district court or

demonstrated plain error under our decision in United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543

(8th Cir. 2005).

Jackson, who was sentenced in February 2003, (pre-Booker) raised no issue

implicating his rights under the Sixth Amendment before the district court. Having

reviewed this case in light of Booker, we now hold that Jackson cannot show plain

error under our decision in Pirani. Consequently, we re-affirm our earlier opinion and

reinstate the vacated judgment. The district court sentenced Jackson to 327 months'

imprisonment to run consecutively to two state court convictions. The trial court

clearly stated its rationale as follows: "Now, the reason that I am imposing the

maximum sentence and the reason that I am ordering them to run consecutive is for

the reason you are a career criminal." Based upon his nine burglary convictions, and

numerous other convictions, Jackson would have been subject to a sentence as a

career offender regardless of the firearm or obstruction of justice enhancements

imposed by the district court. Jackson cannot demonstrate that his sentence would

probably have been more favorable had the district court not imposed the

enhancements made suspect by the holding in Booker. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2006 Entry ID: 2005561