Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-03498/USCOURTS-ca8-02-03498-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Germaine Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

__________

No. 02-3467

__________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, * 

* 

v. * 

 * 

Robert Francis, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________ Appeals from the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District 

No. 02-3498 of Missouri.

___________

 [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* 

v. * 

* 

Germaine Davis, also known as Gary *

Henderson, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

*

Appellate Case: 02-3498 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2005 Entry ID: 1930897 
-2-

__________

No. 02-3964

__________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee *

* 

v. * 

* 

Anthony Francis, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

*

___________

No. 02-3965

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

 * 

v. * 

* 

Leo Muhammad, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

*

___________

 Submitted: January 24, 2005 

 Filed: July 21, 2005 

___________

Appellate Case: 02-3498 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2005 Entry ID: 1930897 
-3-

Before MELLOY, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM

Appellants Robert Francis, Anthony Francis, and Germaine Davis each filed

petitions for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The United

States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari as to each of those defendants and

vacated the decision as to each of them. Appellant Leo Muhammad filed a petition

for rehearing by the panel. That petition remains pending.

We grant Leo Muhammad’s petition for rehearing by the panel. As to all four

cases, this court has conducted a review of the record in this case and the opinion

filed May 12, 2004, is reinstated in its entirety, with the exception that the cases are

remanded to the district court for resentencing under the advisory regime outlined in

United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). 

In remanding these cases, the court notes that as to each defendant the district

court enhanced the sentence based upon judge determined guideline adjustments.

Accordingly, there is a Sixth Amendment error as discussed in Booker. The

defendants preserved the Sixth Amendment issue by specifically referencing the

decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See United States v.

Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005). The four defendants were tried together

and the defendants adopted each others objections to the presentence reports, which

objections included a reference to Apprendi error. Since there is preserved Sixth

Amendment error, the court will remand for resentencing under the advisory

sentencing regime as outlined in Booker.

In conclusion, the court reinstates the decision filed May 12, 2004, in this

matter, except as may be inconsistent with the remand for resentencing under the

advisory guideline system as outlined in United States v. Booker.

____________________________

Appellate Case: 02-3498 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2005 Entry ID: 1930897