Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03944/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03944-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Allen Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3944

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Rodney Allen Brown, * Southern District of Iowa

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: July 26, 2005

Filed: September 30, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Brown (Brown) appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court1

 for the Southern District of Iowa after a jury found him guilty of being a felon

in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court

sentenced Brown to 57 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised release. On

appeal, counsel argues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s

verdict, and (2) that the district court erred in imposing an enhancement for

obstruction of justice because the court did not make an independent finding of

Appellate Case: 03-3944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2005 Entry ID: 1958306
-2-

perjury. We subsequently granted counsel leave to file a supplemental brief in light

of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). In the supplemental brief, counsel

argues that Brown’s sentence is plainly erroneous because he received enhancements

based on the firearm being stolen and for obstruction of justice, those enhancements

were not found by a jury, and they affected his Guidelines range. While this appeal

was pending, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005), that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory. For the

reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

First, we find the evidence amply supports the jury’s verdict. See United States

v. Ramirez, 350 F.3d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 2003) (court reviews sufficiency of evidence

in light most favorable to government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of

government and accepting all reasonable inferences that support jury’s verdict).

Police officers responding to a report of shots being fired spotted Brown hiding

underneath a deck at a nearby house. Two officers testified that they saw a gun in

Brown’s hand, and a third testified that although he could not see Brown’s hands,

Brown had moved his hand over his head before showing his hands. The jury was

free to credit the officers’ testimony over Brown’s testimony. See United States v.

Aguilar-Portillo, 334 F.3d 744, 747 (8th Cir. 2003). Brown did not dispute that he

had a prior felony conviction or that the gun had been transported in interstate

commerce. See United States v. Jones, 266 F.3d 804, 813 (8th Cir. 2001) (elements

of felon-in-possession offense).

As to the sentence, this court continues to review de novo the interpretation and

application of the Guidelines provisions after Booker. See United States v. Ziesman,

409 F.3d 941, 955 (8th Cir. 2005). We find the court sufficiently indicated that it had

made an independent finding that Brown testified falsely, because the court referred

to “the findings that I make” in connection with the court’s conclusion that Brown’s

testimony was false. See id. at 956.

Appellate Case: 03-3944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2005 Entry ID: 1958306
-3-

We review for plain error Brown’s claims based on Booker, as Brown did not

make any arguments in the district court to preserve these issues. See United States

v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, (U.S.

July 27, 2005) (No. 05-5547). We find no error in the enhancement based on the fact

that the firearm was stolen, as Brown admitted that fact at sentencing. See United

States v. Halter, 411 F.3d 949, 951 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (defendant admitted

gun was stolen by failing to object to that statement in PSR, so enhancement he

received on that basis did not violate Sixth Amendment); U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, comment.

(n.19) (2003) (stolen-gun enhancement “applies whether or not the defendant knew

or had reason to believe that the firearm was stolen”). While it was error for the

district court to sentence Brown under mandatory Guidelines, and the error was plain,

it did not affect Brown’s substantial rights, as he has not shown a reasonable

probability that, but for the error, he would have received a more favorable sentence.

See Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553. Further, we find no basis to exercise our discretion to

remand for resentencing. See Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3944 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/30/2005 Entry ID: 1958306