Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03701/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03701-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Birks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3701

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa

*

Michael Birks, also known as Player, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2005

 Filed: August 26, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Birks pleaded guilty to possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The government and Mr. Birks

identified the applicable Federal Sentencing Guidelines range as seventy-eight to

ninety-seven months and recommended a bottom-of-the-range sentence of seventyeight months. The district court, applying the Sentencing Guidelines in a nonadvisory manner, exercised its discretion to reject the recommendation and impose

a sentence of eighty-eight months. Mr. Birks filed a timely appeal, and counsel for

Mr. Birks filed a brief under Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), requesting

permission to withdraw. 

Appellate Case: 03-3701 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2005 Entry ID: 1944905
-2-

While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Blakely

v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), finding aspects of the State of Washington’s

sentencing regime unconstitutional and calling into question the constitutionality of

the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. We conducted an independent review as required

by Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), found a potentially non-frivolous issue

related to Blakely, and denied counsel’s request to withdraw. The Supreme Court

then decided United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), effectively rendering the

Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory in all cases. We subsequently issued our en

banc decision in United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005), setting forth

standards for the preservation and plain error review of Blakely/Booker issues. After

Pirani, we instructed the parties in this case to file supplemental briefs regarding the

issues of preservation of error and plain error.

Under our standard as set forth in Pirani, it is clear that Mr. Birks failed to

preserve any Blakely/Booker error. Accordingly, we review only for plain error. To

be entitled to relief under the plain error standard as articulated in Pirani, a defendant

must demonstrate error that is plain and that affects the defendant’s substantial rights.

Pirani, 406 F.3d at 550. To show that a Blakely/Booker error affects substantial

rights, a defendant must “establish a reasonable probability that, but for Booker error,

the defendant would have received a more favorable sentence under an advisory

guidelines regime.” Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553. Here, the district court applied a middleof-the-range sentence above that recommended by the government. There is nothing

to suggest that the Sentencing Guidelines constrained the district court or that the

district court would have imposed a lesser sentence had it not treated the Guidelines

as mandatory.

Finding no plain error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3701 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2005 Entry ID: 1944905