Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01260/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01260-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frederick Allen McCormick
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1260

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Frederick Allen McCormick, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2005

Filed: September 12, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Frederick McCormick challenges the sentence imposed by the district court

upon his guilty plea to possession of pseudoephedrine for the purpose of

manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(c)(2). In a subsequent motion for remand, and on appeal, he argues under

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), that the district court erred in

sentencing him under a sentencing scheme that is no longer valid.

The district court erred in sentencing McCormick under a mandatory

Guidelines regime, see Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756-57, and McCormick sufficiently

Appellate Case: 05-1260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2005 Entry ID: 1950425
-2-

preserved the issue at sentencing by challenging his sentencing range under Blakely

v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), see United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549

(8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. July 27, 2005) (No. 05-5547).

We thus review for harmless error. See United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644-

45 (8th Cir. 2005). The government has the burden to prove that the error was

harmless, and must show that the error did not affect McCormick’s substantial rights

--i.e., that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under advisory

Guidelines. See id.

We are left with “grave doubt” as to whether the error was harmless:

McCormick was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range, see id. at 645

(holding not harmless district court’s error in imposing sentence under mandatory

Guidelines regime where court sentenced defendant to bottom of Guidelines range,

even if no Sixth Amendment issue was present), and the government has pointed to

nothing in the record that shows the district court would have imposed the same

sentence under an advisory system. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing, and

we deny the pending motion to remand as moot.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2005 Entry ID: 1950425