Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03240/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03240-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Catrina Larson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3240

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Catrina Larson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 26, 2005

Filed: August 22, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Catrina Larson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 or more grams of

methamphetamine, an offense which subjected her to the statutory mandatory

minimum 10-year sentence set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), unless she qualified

for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Proceedings on Larson's safety

valve eligibility began in April 2004 and continued in August 2004. In the meantime,

in June 2004, the United States Supreme Court decided Blakely v. Washington, 124

S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Relying on Blakely, Larson lodged a timely objection to the

Appellate Case: 04-3240 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2005 Entry ID: 1942816
1

The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

-2-

constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines during her sentencing proceedings,

which the district court1

 denied.

The district court concluded that Larson was eligible for the safety valve, and

instead of being subject to the statutory minimum of 120 months, Larson's sentencing

range was set at 87 to 108 months. Though Larson's counsel advocated that she be

sentenced at the bottom of her guidelines' range, the district court instead sentenced

her to 96-months' imprisonment. On appeal, Larson contends that she should be

resentenced under the advisory guidelines scheme.

Because Larson timely objected at sentencing to the constitutionality of the

guidelines, we review her claim for harmless error. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d

543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Larson's claim involves only non-constitutional

Booker error–the district court's treatment of the guidelines as mandatory. Thus, the

government has the burden to establish that we do not have "grave doubt" as to

whether the error substantially influenced the outcome of the proceedings. United

States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005). The government can meet

its burden in this case because the district court sentenced Larson in the middle of her

guidelines' range, despite counsel's entreaties for a sentence at the low end. United

States v. Brooks, No. 04-3320, 2005 WL 1875718, at *2 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 2005)

(holding that because district court sentenced defendant to the middle of the

applicable guidelines' range, the court had no grave doubt whether the application of

mandatory guidelines substantially influenced the district court's sentence).

Furthermore, we find that Larson's sentence is reasonable under the factors set

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3240 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2005 Entry ID: 1942816