Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04076/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04076-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Ronald Lee Webb
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4076

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Ronald Lee Webb, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

__________

Submitted: November 14, 2005

Filed: December 30, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Lee Webb (Webb) appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

following his plea of guilty to one count of knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully

possessing stolen United States Postal Mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. We

affirm.

Webb’s sentencing occurred after the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), but before the Supreme Court’s decision in United

Appellate Case: 04-4076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2005 Entry ID: 1991654
-2-

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). At sentencing, Webb argued

the Guidelines were unconstitutional in light of Blakely, therefore preserving an

appeal of his sentence under Booker. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550

(8th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Regarding any alleged Blakely error, when Webb stipulated to the testimony

of the government’s witnesses, Webb effectively admitted the facts underlying the

district court’s four-level “number of victims” enhancement for committing an

offense involving fifty or more victims, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B). Webb

previously confessed to law enforcement in a videotaped interview he had stolen mail

from approximately 200 mailboxes. The district court could and did accept the

stipulated government witnesses’ testimony as true. Consequently, the district court’s

enhancement of Webb’s sentence did not violate the Sixth Amendment. See United

States v. McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Nonetheless, a Booker error occurred because the district court sentenced

Webb to 24 months’ imprisonment using the mandatory, pre-Booker Guidelines.

Thus, we must decide whether to remand for resentencing. While it was error to

sentence under the mandatory Guidelines regime, the government has shown the error

was harmless because the district court expressly declared it would impose the same

sentence under an advisory scheme. See United States v. Thompson, 403 F.3d 533,

536 (8th Cir. 2005). Booker also requires us to review Webb’s sentence for

unreasonableness, judging it with regard to the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765-66; Thompson, 403 F.3d at 536. Having reviewed the

record and the section 3553(a) factors, we conclude Webb’s sentence is reasonable.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Webb’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2005 Entry ID: 1991654