Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01351/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01351-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rusty Leisure
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 03-2503/04-1351

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeals from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Rusty Leisure, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 1, 2005 

Filed: July 5, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In a previous opinion filed July 30, 2004, we affirmed Leisure’s conviction and

sentence. United States v. Leisure, 377 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2004). In a petition for

rehearing en banc, Leisure argued for the first time that the case should be remanded

for resentencing in light of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), which

called into doubt the constitutionality of the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.

The petition for rehearing was denied on September 16, 2004, and Leisure then

petitioned for a writ of certiorari. On January 24, 2005, the Supreme Court granted

Appellate Case: 04-1351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923719 
-2-

the petition, vacated our previous judgment, and remanded the case for further

consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), which

declared the sentencing guidelines effectively advisory in all cases.

Leisure did not object to his sentence in the district court based on the Sixth

Amendment or the application of mandatory guidelines. Thus, we consider the

impact of Booker on Leisure’s sentence under the plain-error standard. United States

v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2005). To justify relief, the record must at

least establish a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a

more favorable sentence under the advisory guideline scheme announced in Booker.

Id. at 553. 

In this case, the applicable guideline sentencing range was 360 months to life

imprisonment, and the district court imposed a term of 360 months. A sentence at the

low end of the range, however, “is insufficient, without more, to demonstrate a

reasonable probability that the court would have imposed a lesser sentence absent the

Booker error.” Id. The district court’s comment regarding the sentence imposed also

gives no indication that the court believed the 360-month sentence was unreasonable:

I’ll note that the upper and lower ends of the guideline range exceed the

24-month range requiring me to state on the record my reasons for

choosing the low end. And I choose the low end simply because this is

a very substantial period of incarceration; and it should give Mr. Leisure

opportunities for rehabilitation, programming, and I think that it’s an

adequate sentence.

(Tr. 661-62). Where the effect of the district court’s erroneous application of

mandatory guidelines is uncertain or indeterminate, then the reasonable probability

standard is not satisfied, Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553, and we find nothing in the record

to take us beyond the realm of speculation as to how the district court might have

imposed sentence differently under the current sentencing system.

Appellate Case: 04-1351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923719 
-3-

As to all issues other than those implicated by Booker, we adhere to our prior

opinion. For the foregoing reasons, having considered the matter further in light of

Booker, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Attorney Krisanne Weimer is

directed to comply with Part V of this court’s Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan.

Upon notice from Ms. Weimer that she has so complied, the clerk is directed to grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1351 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923719