Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03550/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03550-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene Borkowski
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The HONORABLE GARY A. FENNER, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3550

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Eugene Borkowski, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2006

Filed: August 18, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eugene Borkowski pleaded guilty to child pornography possession and

distribution offenses after an investigation uncovered more than 600 pornographic

images, many depicting adult men engaged in sexually explicit acts with young

children. The presentence investigation report recommended a four-level increase for

possession of “material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct,” U.S.S.G. §

2G2.2(b)(3) (2003), which produced an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 87

to 108 months. At sentencing, the district court1

 overruled Borkowski’s objection to

Appellate Case: 05-3550 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2006 Entry ID: 2079815
-2-

this increase and sentenced him to 108 months in prison. Borkowski appeals, arguing

as he did to the district court that the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Due Process

Clause prohibit the retroactive application of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), in this manner. More specifically, he argues that he “is entitled to the benefit

of the Sixth Amendment holding of Blakely and Booker, but cannot be disadvantaged

by the remedial portion of Booker.” 

We have squarely rejected this argument in a number of decisions issued after

the filing of Borkowski’s appeal brief. United States v. Lyons, 450 F.3d 834, 837-38

(8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Counce, 445 F.3d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 2006); United

States v. Wade, 435 F.3d 829, 831 (8th Cir. 2006). To briefly summarize these

controlling decisions, the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to actions by the

judiciary; Borkowski’s sentence does not violate the due process concept of fair

warning because a sentencing court could have imposed the four-level enhancement

based on facts found by a preponderance of the evidence at the time he committed the

offenses; and the Supreme Court in Booker expressly directed that both facets of its

decision be applied retroactively. See Wade, 435 F.3d at 831-32. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3550 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2006 Entry ID: 2079815