Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01399/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01399-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Allen Bisbee
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1399

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Arkansas.

Charles Allen Bisbee, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: 

 Filed: July 7, 2005 

___________

Before 

___________

PER CURIAM.

After two days of trial, Mr. Bisbee pleaded guilty to eight counts of mail fraud

under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Over Mr. Bisbee’s objection, the district court1

 imposed a

role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 and sentenced him to thirty-three months

imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the

Appellate Case: 04-1399 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924890
-2-

enhancement. Also, the district court sentenced Mr. Bisbee before the Supreme Court

issued its opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Mr. Bisbee

raises a Sixth Amendment argument on appeal claiming that the district court

impermissibly based the enhancement on facts neither admitted by the defendant nor

found by the jury. We affirm.

Mr. Bisbee’s crimes involved the fraudulent sale of stolen vehicles as salvaged

and rebuilt vehicles. Participants in the scheme stole vehicles nearly identical to

recently wrecked vehicles and switched the vehicle identification numbers between

the wrecked and stolen vehicles. Mr. Bisbee then sold the stolen vehicles as salvaged

and rebuilt vehicles. On Mr. Bisbee’s property, government agents found twenty

wrecked vehicles with identification numbers removed. The unwitting buyers used

the mail to communicate with lenders, insurers, and a state government agency to

finance and register the vehicles.

Mr. Bisbee admitted to these facts in his change of plea hearing. He also

admitted during his sentencing hearing that at least two other individuals were

involved in the scheme. The district court relied on these facts to assess the role

enhancement. This evidence was sufficient to support the enhancement.

When a defendant raises a Sixth Amendment, 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, 551-52 (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 Mr. Bisbee at the top of the

applicable Guidelines range. There is nothing to suggest that the district court would

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

guidelines as mandatory. 

Appellate Case: 04-1399 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924890
-3-

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1399 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924890