Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01745/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01745-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry A. Boyce
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1745

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Barry A. Boyce, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 25, 2007

Filed: November 8, 2007

___________

Before BYE, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

Barry A. Boyce pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or

more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Among his points on

appeal, Boyce argues that the government failed to present enough evidence to support

the district court’s determination of his criminal history category. We agree, so we

vacate the sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

Boyce’s first sentencing hearing was conducted on August 23, 2004, shortly

after the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

Angling to take advantage of Blakely’s potential implications, Boyce filed a document

he captioned his “second supplemental objections” and “motion for leave to file

Appellate Case: 06-1745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2007 Entry ID: 3370946
-2-

supplemental objections.” In this document, Boyce objected to all of the paragraphs

in the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) regarding his criminal history and

argued that, in light of Blakely, the court should impose the statutory minimum

sentence of five years based on criminal history category I. Believing that Blakely

“prevented it from finding the facts necessary to enhance Boyce’s guideline

imprisonment range,” the district court determined that Boyce’s offense level is 23

and that his criminal history category is II. United States v. Boyce, No. 04-3429, 137

Fed. Appx. 934 (8th Cir. Jul. 5, 2005). We reversed that decision, and remanded for

a correct guidelines calculation and consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Id. 

On August 2, 2006, the district court held a resentencing hearing. At the outset

of the hearing, when the court suggested that the government proceed with testimony,

Boyce’s counsel expressed his desire to preserve his previously filed objections to the

PSR. The government consented to preserving the objections and then called its

witnesses. Of the four witnesses called, the only evidence of Boyce’s criminal history

was given by James Otis Baker, who mentioned that Boyce was released from a state

prison sentence in 2002. No documentation of Boyce’s criminal history was offered

as an exhibit or appended to the PSR.

The arguments at the hearing focused on the proper interpretation of Blakely

and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and the credibility of the

government’s witnesses. Boyce’s counsel also mentioned that the PSR had not been

supplemented since the objections were made, and asked to renew the objections. At

the close of defense counsel’s arguments, the district judge announced, “I believe

there is sufficient, if not ample, evidence to support the enhancements in the

calculation of the presentencing report.” The court then adopted the findings in the

PSR, without addressing Boyce’s criminal history objection. Based on offense level

39 and criminal history category III, the district court imposed a sentence of 324

months.

Appellate Case: 06-1745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2007 Entry ID: 3370946
-3-

Although Boyce’s criminal history objection to the PSR may have been

“confusingly intermingled” with other objections based on Blakely and Booker, the

objection was sufficient to put the government and the district court on notice that he

was challenging the factual allegations in the PSR. See United States v. Sorrells, 432

F.3d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 2005). In the face of this objection, the United States failed

to offer adequate evidence of Boyce’s criminal history, and the district court failed to

rule on Boyce’s objection. Because of this error, we vacate the sentence and remand

for a resentencing hearing. See, e.g., United States v. Jenners, 473 F.3d 894, 898-99

(8th Cir. 2007); United States v. Wintermute, 443 F.3d 993, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 2006).

On remand, the district court may hear any relevant evidence it could have heard at

the first sentencing hearing, see Jenners, 473 F.3d at 899, and should follow the

procedures mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). See Wintermute, 443 F.3d at 1004-05;

see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) (requiring the sentencing court to rule on

disputed portions of the PSR or to specifically determine that a ruling is unnecessary).

For the reasons stated above, we vacate Boyce’s sentence and remand for

resentencing.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1745 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2007 Entry ID: 3370946