Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01975/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01975-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clinton L. McGhee
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1975

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Clinton L. McGhee, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 13, 2005

Filed: March 24, 2006

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The government appeals Clinton McGhee's sentence. McGhee pleaded guilty

to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and possession of a firearm. At

sentencing, the government sought to enhance his sentence because he recklessly

created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to others when he fled from

the police. The district court found that it could not apply the enhancement because

the enhancement had not been alleged in the indictment or admitted by the defendant

at the time of the plea, citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

According to the presentence investigation report (PSR), the pertinent factual portions

of which the defendant did not object to, with the enhancement, the defendant's

guidelines range would have been 235 to 293 months for the drug charge. Without

Appellate Case: 05-1975 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2006 Entry ID: 2024857
-2-

the sentencing enhancement, the district court determined that the range was 188 to

235 months for the drug charge, and sentenced McGhee to 192 total months (132

months for the drug charge, and a consecutive statutorily mandated 60-month sentence

for the gun charge).

We reverse. In Booker, the Court specifically held that sentencing factors need

not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt so long as the guidelines are non-mandatory.

Id. at 233, 244-47. The Court's remedial portion of the Booker opinion rendered the

guidelines advisory. Id. at 244-47. Our post-Booker jurisprudence adheres to this

principle, and clearly sets forth the standards district courts should use in sentencing.

United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir.) (outlining sentencing

procedure, and noting that a sentencing judge is entitled to find facts appropriate for

determining either a guidelines or a non-guidelines sentence), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

276 (2005); United States v. Shannon, 414 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2005) (setting forth

the district court's post-Booker sentencing procedure). 

The district court erroneously refused to consider the unobjected-to facts in the

PSR when calculating McGhee's guidelines sentence. Considering the disparity

between the PSR's calculated range and the range ultimately applied by the district

court, the error was not harmless. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing. See United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (8th Cir. 2005)

(noting that if the sentence imposed was the result of miscalculating the guidelines,

we remand for re-sentencing absent harmless error).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1975 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2006 Entry ID: 2024857