Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03392/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03392-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Allen Devono
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3392

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Jeffrey Allen Devono, *

* [PUBLISHED] 

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: June 20, 2005

Filed: July 8, 2005 

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Allen Devono appeals his sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Devono pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography and possession of child

pornography. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (a)(4). The district court1

 applied a twolevel enhancement for simple distribution, for a sentencing range of 33 to 41 months.

See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(2)(E) (2002). Devono objected based on Blakely v.

Appellate Case: 04-3392 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2005 Entry ID: 1925446
-2-

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), arguing for a range of 27 to 33 months. The

court imposed a 40-month sentence. In his brief to this court, Devono argues the

sentencing enhancement violates the Sixth Amendment because the evidence of

distribution was not proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While this appeal

was pending, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005).

This court first addresses the distribution enhancement. Under Booker: "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." Id. at 756. A fact in the presentence report not specifically

objected to is admitted for purposes of Booker. United States v. McCully, 407 F.3d

931, 933 (8th Cir. 2005).

Devono did not object to the presentence-report statement that he "admitted

transmitting both adult and child pornography to other users through his chat room

encounters." At sentencing, defense counsel states, "We didn't object to the factual

basis in the Presentence Report because frankly we believed that the facts are true that

are set forth in there." Later, counsel says, "I submit there was some [child

pornography] and he distributed and he has admitted that . . . ." The district court

notes that Devono "clearly acknowledges distribution." Counsel replies, "Judge, I

think that clearly there is distribution, but that is part of the crime." Because Devono

admits the facts supporting the enhancement, there is no Sixth Amendment violation.

See id.

Under Booker, district courts are not bound by the guidelines, but must consult

and consider them when sentencing. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756-57, 767. Sentences

imposed by a district court applying the guidelines as mandatory contain Booker

error. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550, 553 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). In

Appellate Case: 04-3392 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2005 Entry ID: 1925446
-3-

this case, however, the district court presciently did not believe the guidelines to be

mandatory. Predicting Booker, the judge states at sentencing:

. . . we have a Blakely issue in that it has been my ruling that the

Guidelines cannot be applied as mandatory, but should be applied as

advisory and, therefore, I am free to go somewhat beyond the sentencing

range that is recommended, either up or down.

In sum, the district court determined the correct guidelines range, and consulted

the advisory guidelines. It then imposed a reasonable sentence within the range. See

United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 985 & n.4 (8th Cir. 2005). There is no

Booker error.

This court affirms the sentence of Jeffrey Allen Devono.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3392 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/08/2005 Entry ID: 1925446