Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03589/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03589-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chris Bruce
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3589

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Chris Bruce, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2005

Filed: July 7, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

The government appeals from the sentence imposed upon Chris Bruce by the

district court. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

Bruce pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine, after having previously been convicted of two felony drug

offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 851. In his plea agreement with the

government, Bruce stipulated to the fact that he had possessed at least 9.4 grams of

methamphetamine with intent to distribute and that he had previously been convicted

of two felony drug offenses in Iowa state court. Government Add. at 13-14. In

Appellate Case: 04-3589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924902
-2-

addition, he stipulated that the career offender provision of the federal sentencing

guidelines, see United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 4B1.1

(2003), applied to his case, mandating an offense level of 34 and a criminal history

category of VI. Government Add. at 9.

Bruce’s Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) similarly recommended that

the career offender guideline be applied. PSR at ¶ 24. The PSR also noted that the

government planned to move for a three-level reduction for acceptance of

responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, and recommended reducing Bruce’s offense

level accordingly. PSR at ¶¶ 25-28. The PSR thus set Bruce’s presumptive

guidelines sentencing range at between 188 and 235 months’ imprisonment. Id. at

¶ 65.

At sentencing, the district court—over the government’s objection—sua sponte

held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531

(2004), rendered the federal sentencing guidelines facially unconstitutional and

therefore that it could disregard the guidelines and sentence Bruce to any term within

the statutory range applicable to his offense. Sent. Tr. at 2-3, 8-9. The district court

then sentenced Bruce to 96 months’ imprisonment. Id. at 9. In the event that the

guidelines were eventually declared constitutional or that the district court’s decision

that the guidelines were facially unconstitutional as applied to Bruce’s case was

otherwise found to be in error, the district court imposed an alternative guidelines

sentence of 188 months’ imprisonment. Id. at 8.

Given the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), it is clear that the district court erred by not consulting the

guidelines and taking them into account during Bruce’s sentencing. See id. at 767;

United States v. Barnett, No. 04-3213, slip op. at 5-6 (8th Cir. May 31, 2005). Even

though the government timely objected, however, we need not correct the error if it

did not affect substantial rights and thus was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). The

Appellate Case: 04-3589 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924902
-3-

burden of proving that the district court’s error was harmless falls upon Bruce as the

beneficiary of the error. Barnett, slip op. at 6 (citing United States v. Haidley, 400

F.3d 642, 644 (8th Cir. 2005)). Because the district court’s error was admittedly not

of constitutional magnitude, Bruce must establish harmless error by showing that “no

‘grave doubt’ exists as to whether the district court’s failure to at least consider the

Guidelines” influenced the 96-month sentence. Id. See also Haidley, 400 F.3d at

644-45. 

On the record before us, such a grave doubt is present. The district court

imposed Bruce’s 96-month sentence by completely disregarding the guidelines. Its

alternative sentence, however, indicates that Bruce’s imposed sentence could have

been higher had the district court been aware of its responsibility to at least consult

the guidelines during sentencing. Accordingly, the district court’s error was not

harmless, and we must vacate the 96-month sentence.

Although the district court did set an alternative sentence of 188 months’

imprisonment, we are hesitant to direct its imposition on remand. Unlike recent cases

in which we have discussed a district court’s selection of alternative sentences,

Bruce’s alternative sentence differs substantially from that actually imposed by the

district court. See United States v. Thompson, 403 F.3d 533, 535 (8th Cir. 2005)

(imposed and alternative sentences identical); United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d

982, 985 (8th Cir. 2005) (same). Furthermore, we note that the district court’s

alternative sentence was also erroneous, inasmuch as it was determined under a

mandatory guidelines regime. See Thompson, 403 F.3d at 535. Given these

circumstances, as well as the fact that it is the government, rather than Bruce, that is

the appellant in this case, we believe that both parties should be afforded an

opportunity to argue the appropriate sentence under the proper standard on remand.

See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764-65 (holding that district courts must sentence in

accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). 

Appellate Case: 04-3589 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924902
-4-

The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for

resentencing in accordance with the holding in Booker.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3589 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924902