Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03122/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03122-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hassan A. Grace
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3122

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Hassan A. Grace, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2005

Filed: July 13, 2005 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Hassan A. Grace pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Invoking Blakely v. Washington, 123 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), Grace objected to the

presentence report's recommendation of a four-level increase for using the firearm in

connection with another felony offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). The district

court*

 rejected Grace's objection, imposed the four-level increase, and sentenced

Grace to the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months under the mandatory

guidelines scheme. Anticipating the Supreme Court’s impending decision in United

Appellate Case: 04-3122 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927380
-2-

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the district court also took the precaution of

imposing an alternative 120-month sentence assuming the guidelines were

unconstitutional. Grace appeals his sentence, and we affirm.

Relying on the issue preserved below, Grace contends the district court

violated his Sixth Amendment rights by enhancing his sentence based on facts not

proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. The factual allegations

contained in the presentence report show Grace was gambling when a dispute over

the money erupted. Grace then pulled out a firearm, fired several shots at one of the

gamesters as he fled the scene, and pistol-whipped two others when they tried to calm

the situation. Grace does not contend in this appeal that the facts recited in the

presentence report do not support the four-level enhancement, and having failed to

object to the factual allegations, Grace has admitted the facts supporting the

enhancement for the purposes of the Supreme Court's decision in Booker. See United

States v. McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 2005). Thus, the sentence did not

violate Grace's Sixth Amendment rights.

Grace also claims the district court imposed an unlawful alternative sentence

because the “[s]entencing [g]uidelines have been held to be constitutional in a long

line of cases.” Booker invalidated the guidelines to the extent they were applied in

a mandatory manner, 125 S. Ct. at 764, however, and held that although district courts

are no longer bound to apply them, they must be consulted and taken into account

when sentencing, id. at 767. Thus, the district court committed Booker error by

sentencing Grace under the theory the guidelines were completely unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, we need not remand for resentencing because the error was harmless.

United States v. Thompson, 403 F.3d 533, 535 (8th Cir. 2005). "[I]n cases not

involving a Sixth Amendment violation, whether resentencing is warranted or

whether it will instead be sufficient to review a sentence for reasonableness may

depend upon application of the harmless-error doctrine", Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 769,

and "any error . . . that does not affect substantial rights [of the defendant] must be

Appellate Case: 04-3122 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927380
-3-

disregarded," Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). "[I]n most cases [this] means [the error] must

have affected the outcome of the district court proceeding." United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). Here, there is no grave doubt that the district court’s

failure to consider the guidelines affected Grace’s ultimate sentence. United States

v. Barnett, No. 04-3213, 2005 WL 1268831, at *3 (8th Cir. May 31, 2005). The

district court rebuffed defense counsel's request for a sentence "at the lower end of

the guidelines of 77,” imposed a 120-month sentence under mandatory guidelines,

and then announced it would sentence Grace to the 120-month statutory maximum

sentence regardless of whether the guidelines were mandatory. Given this record, we

have no grave doubt that the district court would have imposed the same sentence

under an advisory guidelines system. See id. at *4.

Finally, having reviewed Grace's sentence for reasonableness in light of the

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we conclude the district court's sentence

reasonably reflects the seriousness of the criminal conduct in this case.

We affirm Grace's sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3122 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/13/2005 Entry ID: 1927380