Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-03-03087/USCOURTS-caDC-03-03087-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnett C. Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed March 18, 2005

No. 03-3087

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

APPELLEE

v.

ARNETT C. SMITH,

APPELLANT

On Petition for Rehearing

Before: ROGERS, GARLAND, and ROBERTS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: Appellant Arnett C. Smith petitions for

rehearing of our decision affirming his sentence for conspiracy

and conflict of interest. He contends that his sentence is

unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment in light of United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Smith did not raise any

Sixth Amendment claim when the sentence at issue was imposed

by the district court, and accordingly our review is limited to

plain error. Because Smith has not shown any prejudice he

cannot satisfy the test for plain error, and we deny the petition.

See id. at 769 (in applying Booker, “we expect reviewing courts

USCA Case #03-3087 Document #884729 Filed: 03/18/2005 Page 1 of 3
2

to applyordinaryprudential doctrines, determining, for example,

whether the issue was raised below and whether it fails the

‘plain-error’ test”).

At his initial sentencing, Smith did argue that enhancements

and upward departures under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. We vacated

and remanded that sentence on other grounds not relevant here.

United States v. Smith, 267 F.3d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 2001). At

resentencing, Smith failed to raise the constitutional challenge

anew, and we eventually affirmed his sentence. United States v.

Smith, 374 F.3d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 2004). As it is this latter

disposition that Smith now asks us to revisit, and as that

disposition dealt only with the proceedings on remand, Smith’s

election not to re-raise the challenge below means that he has

failed to preserve it for appellate review. Smith’s alternate

argument, that circuit precedent at the time of remand rendered

any objection futile, lacks merit. See Johnson v. United States,

520 U.S. 461, 464 (1997) (intervening change in law no excuse

for failure to object).

Accordingly, we review the sentence only for plain error.

FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b). Smith fails the plain error test because

he cannot show that the constitutional error in this case had a

prejudicial effect. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 124

S. Ct. 2333, 2339 (2004). The district judge, on each of the prior

two sentencings, imposed a sentence beyond what the Guidelines require. The first time, he departed upward and sentenced

Smith to 46 months, adding that “I believe, in my view, that you

deserve the sentence that will be imposed here.” On remand, the

judge was forced to impose a shorter sentence — 21 months —

but again reached the figure by departing upward, even though

the government had not requested an upward departure on

resentencing.

USCA Case #03-3087 Document #884729 Filed: 03/18/2005 Page 2 of 3
3

Booker’s requirement that the sentencing judge appreciate

that he is not bound by the Guidelines thus plainly cannot help

Smith. Smith implicitly acknowledges this in the relief he seeks

— resentencing with an instruction precluding the trial court

from imposing a sentence higher than 21 months. He recognizes

that giving the district judge wider latitude in this case could

very well result in a longer sentence. Smith was not prejudiced

by the impermissibly mandatory nature of the Guidelines; if

anything, he benefitted from it.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

USCA Case #03-3087 Document #884729 Filed: 03/18/2005 Page 3 of 3