Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02484/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02484-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Eugene Heidt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2484

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Timothy Eugene Heidt, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 11, 2005

Filed: July 12, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Heidt appeals his sentence on two counts of making a false statement

to a licensed firearms dealer, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6), 924(a)(2), and one count of

possessing firearms and ammunition while being an unlawful user of marijuana, see

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), 924(a)(2). We affirm.

Mr. Heidt first argues that the district court1

 erred by increasing his offense

level for obstructing justice by perjuring himself at trial. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. His

Appellate Case: 04-2484 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2005 Entry ID: 1926763
-2-

offense conduct included falsely answering "no" on two occasions to a question on

ATF Form 4473 that asked whether he was an unlawful user of marijuana. At trial,

Mr. Heidt testified that he had stopped using marijuana before he completed the ATF

forms, and that the dealer from whom he purchased the firearms told him that, under

those circumstances, he should deny that he was an unlawful user of marijuana. But

the government introduced into evidence a written statement that appeared to be

signed by Mr. Heidt and included an admission that he had used marijuana for one

year longer than the period to which he testified at trial, which would mean that he

still was using marijuana when he completed the ATF forms. Although Mr. Heidt

testified that he had not signed the statement and he disputed its accuracy, according

to the testimony of a police officer who interviewed him, the challenged statement

was the original of a document that Mr. Heidt had signed in the officer's presence.

Last, the dealer from whom Mr. Heidt purchased firearms testified that he never

advises customers about how to answer questions on the ATF forms other than to tell

them to answer honestly. In light of the contradictions between Mr. Heidt's testimony

and other evidence admitted at trial, the district court did not err when it found that

Mr. Heidt had perjured himself and thereby obstructed justice. See United States v.

Harris, 352 F.3d 362, 366-67 (8th Cir. 2003).

Mr. Heidt also contends that the district court violated his sixth amendment

rights by finding facts that resulted in an obstruction-of-justice adjustment to his

sentence. Because Mr. Heidt raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we review

for plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 548-50 (8th Cir. 2005) (en

banc). The district court sentenced Mr. Heidt before the Supreme Court's decision

in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and erred by not sentencing him

under the advisory-guidelines scheme set out in that case. Nevertheless, Mr. Heidt

has not "demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have received a more

favorable sentence with the Booker error eliminated," Pirani, 406 F.3d at 551;

nothing in the record indicates that the district court had any qualms about the

Appellate Case: 04-2484 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2005 Entry ID: 1926763
-3-

sentence that it imposed. Mr. Heidt therefore does not qualify for relief. See id. at

550-53.

Finally, Mr. Heidt argues that the district court violated his sixth amendment

rights by finding facts by a preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a

reasonable doubt. As we held in Pirani, however, "[n]othing in Booker suggests that

sentencing judges are required to find sentencing-enhancing facts beyond a

reasonable doubt under the advisory Guidelines regime." Id. at 551 n.4. We

therefore conclude that the district court did not err. 

Affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2484 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2005 Entry ID: 1926763