Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01502/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01502-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julian McClain
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1502

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Julian McClain, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 14, 2005

Filed: September 22, 2005

___________

Before BYE, BRIGHT, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Julian McClain appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

claiming error resulting from the district court’s use of a disputed drug quantity

calculation in violation of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), judicial

bias, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

McClain withdrew his objection to the drug quantity calculation in the Presentence report. (Tr. at 4-5.) This withdrawal constituted an admission. United States

Appellate Case: 05-1502 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2005 Entry ID: 1954756
-2-

v. Hipolito-Sanchez, 998 F.2d 594, 596 (8th Cir. 1993); see United States v. MoraHiguera, 269 F.3d 905, 912-13 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirmatively declining to object to

drug quantity calculation in pre-sentence report at sentencing hearing constitutes a

waiver of the issue). The district court could rely on the admission in sentencing

without erring under Booker. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756.

McClain’s judicial bias argument was not raised on appeal and therefore the

district court’s statements are reviewed under the plain error standard. United States

v. Sypolt, 346 F.3d 838, 839 (8th Cir. 2003). Under such standard, McClain must

demonstrate a “reasonable probability, based on the appellate record as a whole, that

but for the error [the Defendant] would have received a more favorable sentence.”

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 970 (8th Cir. 2005). McClain has failed to do

so. Indeed, the district court granted a larger downward departure than was sought

by the government and indicated its willingness to grant a reduction in sentence

should the government file a Rule 35(b) motion. (Tr. at 23-24, 26.) The district

court’s statements were personal characterizations of McClain based upon its

interpretation of the submissions before it and did not evince any personal bias

requiring recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455.

McClain argues ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel decided

not to dispute the drug quantity established by reference to McClain’s prior

attestations. McClain’s counsel made an objectively reasonable decision to not risk

losing a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility by disputing previous

attestations. Finally, the failure to cite to Blakely or Booker created no prejudice for

McClain since no Booker error was committed. Accordingly, McClain suffered no

ineffective assistance of counsel. Thai v. Mapes, 412 F.3d 970, 978 (8th Cir. 2005).

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1502 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2005 Entry ID: 1954756