Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03728/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03728-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Russell James Hodge
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3728

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Russell James Hodge, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 28, 2005

Filed: July 13, 2005 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Russell Hodge pleaded guilty to (1) being an unlawful user of a controlled

substance while in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and

924(a)(2); and (2) conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to

distribute 500 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and conspiring to distribute pseudoephedrine knowing

it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(c)(2) and 846. After granting Hodge a minor-role reduction over the

government’s objection, the district court sentenced Hodge to 84 months

imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. The government appeals, arguing that

Appellate Case: 04-3728 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927422
-2-

the district court incorrectly granted Hodge the minor-role reduction. We reverse and

remand for resentencing. 

Initially, we reject Hodge’s contention that United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.

738 (2005), renders the appeal moot by making the Guidelines advisory: the

Guidelines range is still a factor that the district court must consider in sentencing a

defendant. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 757 (sentencing court is required to consider

Guidelines ranges, but the court is permitted to tailor sentence in light of other

statutory concerns as well); United States v. Mathijssen, 406 F.3d 496, 498 (8th Cir.

2005) (district court must continue to determine appropriate Guidelines range as it did

pre-Booker, before it considers other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors). We review the

application of the Guidelines de novo and the district court’s factual findings for clear

error. See Mathijssen, 406 F.3d at 498. 

Upon conducting such review, we conclude the district court clearly erred in

finding that Hodge played a minor role in the conspiracy. The court failed to consider

and discuss Hodge’s role--his admitted provision of thousands of pseudoephedrine

pills during the course of the conspiracy--in the pseudoephedrine-distribution

objective of the charged conspiracy, as compared to the other participants and the

elements of that offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.5) (minor participant

is one “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be

described as minimal”); United States v. Johnson, 408 F.3d 535, 538-39 (8th Cir.

2005) (propriety of § 3B1.2 adjustment is determined by comparing acts of each

participant in relation to relevant conduct for which participant is held accountable

and by measuring each participant’s individual acts and relative culpability against

elements of offense); United States v. Johnson, 358 F.3d 1016, 1018 (8th Cir. 2004)

(defendant has burden of proving entitlement to minor-role reduction).

Further, we cannot be certain that the district court’s error was harmless,

because it is unclear to us whether the district court would have imposed the same

Appellate Case: 04-3728 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927422
-3-

sentence absent the error. We therefore reverse the sentence and remand to the

district court to resentence Hodge in accordance with this opinion, under the now

advisory Guidelines regime. See United States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th

Cir. 2005) (appellate court remands for resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(f)(1) when Guidelines are incorrectly applied unless error was harmless;

remand is unnecessary if district court would have imposed same sentence absent

application error).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3728 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927422