Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-02-05211/USCOURTS-ca10-02-05211-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marlin James Mack
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STA TES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAY 6 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

V. No. 02-5211 

MARLIN JAMES MACK, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

(D. Ct. No. 00-CR-126-001-C) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before T ACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, EBEL, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the 

Jctem1ination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.l(G). The 

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

A jury found Defendant-Appellant Marlin James Mack guilty of numerous counts 

relating to possessing with intent to distribute, and conspiring to possess and distribute, 

narcotics. The District Court sentenced Mr. Mack to life in prison to be followed by five 

*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of 

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the 

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under 

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 02-5211 Document: 010110617273 Date Filed: 05/06/2005 Page: 1
years' supervised release and imposed $15,517 in assessments and restitution. We 

affirmed. See United States v. Mack, 100 Fed. Appx. 752 (10th Cir. June 7, 2004) 

(unpublished). The Supreme Court summarily reversed and remanded our decision in 

light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.-, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See Mack v. United 

States, - U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1037 (Jan. 24, 2005). We REINSTATE all non-sentencing 

portions of our previous opinion, VACA TE Mr. Mack's sentence, and REMAND for 

resentencing consistent with Booker. 

The Government prosecuted Mr. Mack for being a member of an extensive drug 

conspiracy. At trial, multiple witnesses testified to Mr. Mack's involvement in the 

conspiracy. Specifically, the government introduced the following evidence of Mr. 

Mack's involvement in the conspiracy: (1) the police arrested him in 1998 at a Tulsa 

airport in connection with a marijuana shipment; (2) he phoned and transferred money to 

the leader of the conspiracy frequently during the duration of the conspiracy; (3) Mr. 

Mack assisted in and supervised the packaging and shipping of marijuana for the 

conspiracy on multiple occasions; ( 4) officers arrested Mr. Mack for possessing cocaine 

with intent to distribute outside of a Tulsa airport as he returned from Phoenix; and ( 5) 

several witnesses testified that Mr. Mack murdered two men that he claimed stole cocaine 

from him. 

Although the Government presented testimony that Mr. Mack killed two people, it 

did not charge him with an unlawful killing nor did the jury find that Mr. Mack 

-2-

Appellate Case: 02-5211 Document: 010110617273 Date Filed: 05/06/2005 Page: 2
committed any homicide offense. Nevertheless, relying on the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines § § 2D 1.1 ( d)(l) and 2A 1.1, the District Court enhanced Mr. Mack's sentence 

because it found based upon the preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Mack killed two 

men. As the Supreme Court instructed in Booker, such an enhancement violates the Sixth 

Amendment. 125 S. Ct. at 756 ("Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is 

necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts 

established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or 

proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."). 

While there is no doubt that this enhancement constitutes Sixth Amendment error, 

the conditions required for a remand are dependent upon whether Mr. Mack objected to 

this enhancement below. Although he was sentenced prior to Blakely v. Washington, 542 

U.S.-, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), the record illustrates that Mr. Mack objected to this 

sentencing enhancement below. At his sentencing hearing, Mr. Mack objected to the 

court "putting a first degree murder sentencing guideline on a defendant who was just 

tried ... in a drug conspiracy case." Sentencing Hearing Tr. at 5. He further argued that 

he should only be sentenced based on "what the jury actually convicted [him] of." Id. 

The District Court overruled this objection. 

Because Mr. Mack adequately raised this issue below, we must vacate his sentence 

unless the error is harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); United States v. Riccardi, - F.3d-, 

2005 WL 896430, *19 (10th Cir. 2005) (applying harmless error analysis to a preserved 

-3-

Appellate Case: 02-5211 Document: 010110617273 Date Filed: 05/06/2005 Page: 3
constitutional Booker error). The Supreme Court has held that, in regard to sentencing 

errors, harmlessness consists of determining, based "on the record as a whole," whether 

"the error ... affect[ed] the district court's selection of the sentence imposed." Williams 

v. United States, 503 U.S. 193,203 (1992) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a)). In harmless 

error cases, the Government bears the burden of demonstrating that the sentence was not 

affected. Id. Because this error is of constitutional dimension, the Government must 

establish this lack of effect beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 

U.S. 18, 24 (1967). 

The Government does not meet this burden. The Government's sole argument is 

that the record contains evidence to support the application of the enhancing Guidelines 

by a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. In this case, such a showing is insufficient 

because the Government does not establish that the District Court, finding facts by a 

preponderance of the evidence under a discretionary sentencing scheme, would have 

imposed a life sentence. The record is silent on this score. As such, we cannot conclude 

beyond a reasonable doubt that this error is harmless. See United States v. 

Labastida-Segura, 396 F.3d 1140, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005) (on harmless-error review, 

remanding a non-constitutional Booker error case in the face of a silent record). 

Therefore, we REINSTATE all non-sentencing portions of our previous opinion, 

-4-

Appellate Case: 02-5211 Document: 010110617273 Date Filed: 05/06/2005 Page: 4
VACATE Mr. Mack's sentence, and REMAND for resentencing consistent with Booker. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT, 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Chief Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 02-5211 Document: 010110617273 Date Filed: 05/06/2005 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 02-5211 Document: 010110617273 Date Filed: 05/06/2005 Page: 6