Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03491/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03491-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Kelly Mounts
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3491

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Robert Kelly Mounts, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 4, 2005

Filed: December 5, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Mounts (Mounts) appeals the sentence imposed by the district court

after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and to interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The district court sentenced Mounts to 100 months’

imprisonment, the bottom of the Guidelines range, and 3 years’ supervised release.

Mounts seeks review of his sentence based on Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531

(2004), maintaining the facts supporting certain sentencing enhancements were not

charged in the indictment, and were neither proven to a jury beyond a reasonable

doubt nor admitted by Mounts during his plea colloquy. Mounts also argues that aside

from the Blakely issue, the court erred by applying a 4-level enhancement for

Appellate Case: 04-3491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2005 Entry ID: 1981855
-2-

possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, under U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(b)(5), because there was no evidence to indicate he directly possessed the

firearm; and further, the court wrongly applied the lower standard of proof used in

drug cases. 

This court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines

de novo and the court’s factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Mack,

343 F.3d 929, 935 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1226 (2004). It is

undisputed Mounts drove a stolen truck while aware of a loaded RG Model 66 .22

caliber pistol in the glove box of the truck. The district court did not err by inferring

the pistol in the glove box emboldened Mounts to continue possessing the stolen

truck. Thus, the court properly enhanced Mounts’s base offense level under section

2K2.1(b)(5). See id. at 936 (for section 2K2.1(b)(5) purposes, “a defendant’s

maintenance of a firearm at an easily accessible location while in a stolen car permits

the inference that the firearm emboldened the defendant to continue his illegal

conduct” of tampering with same vehicle). Additionally, the court’s reasoning in its

entirety reveals that although the court drew an analogy to drug cases, it did not

actually apply the “not clearly improbable standard” used to determine the possession

of firearms in drug cases, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (comment. n.3), and instead

determined Mounts possessed the firearm in connection with the offense of interstate

transportation of a stolen vehicle. 

Mounts’s Blakely challenge to his sentence, however is valid, because the

district court erred in sentencing Mounts under a mandatory Guidelines regime, see

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005) (holding Guidelines to be only

advisory), and Mounts preserved this issue at sentencing. We thus review for

harmless error. See id. at 769. The government did not meet its burden of proving

harmless error. Mounts was sentenced at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines

range, and there is nothing in the record to suggest the district court would have given

Appellate Case: 04-3491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2005 Entry ID: 1981855
-3-

the same sentence under an advisory system. See United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d

642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3491 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/05/2005 Entry ID: 1981855