Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01142/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01142-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Booker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1142

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the Western 

* District of Missouri.

Andre Booker, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: September 8, 2004 

 Filed: July 29, 2005 

___________

Before 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andre Booker (the “defendant”) pled guilty to one count of being a felon in

possession of a firearm. He moved for a downward departure, alleging that he

possessed the firearm solely for the purpose of self-defense. He alleged that

possession of the firearm was necessary because he had testified in a murder trial, he

had been shot, two of his brothers had been murdered, and numerous people had been

Appellate Case: 04-1142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2005 Entry ID: 1934239
1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

following him. The district court1

 found his claims regarding self-defense partially

credible. The district court noted, however, that his claims were not sufficient to

justify a downward departure. After denying his motion for a downward departure,

the district court calculated a Guidelines range of thirty to thirty-seven months. The

district court stated, “I am not going to go to the top of the Guidelines partly because

I am convinced that it was self-protection here, but I don’t think I should go to the

complete bottom of the Guidelines, either.” The district court then sentenced the

defendant to thirty-three months’ imprisonment.

The defendant’s counsel filed an appeal brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), along with a motion to withdraw. While that appeal and motion

were pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 124

S.Ct. 2531 (2004). We subsequently entered an order denying counsel’s motion to

withdraw and instructing counsel to determine whether the defendant wished to

challenge his sentence based on Blakely. Counsel then filed notice of the defendant’s

intention to present additional argument under Blakely. Since then, the Supreme

Court has decided United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), which declared the

Sentencing Guidelines effectively advisory in all cases.

When a defendant raises a Blakely claim for the first time on appeal, we review

for plain error under the standard set forth in United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543,

552 (8th Cir. 2005). To show prejudice under Pirani, a defendant must show a

reasonable probability that the district court would have granted a lesser sentence had

the district court not treated the Guidelines as mandatory. Id. Here, the district court

sentenced the defendant in the middle of the applicable range. The district court

specifically noted the impropriety, under the facts of the case, of imposing a sentence

at the top or bottom of the range. There is nothing to suggest that the district court

Appellate Case: 04-1142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2005 Entry ID: 1934239
-3-

would have given Mr. Booker a lesser sentence had the district court not treated the

Guidelines as mandatory. 

Finding no other issues that merit discussion, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, the judgment

of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1142 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/29/2005 Entry ID: 1934239