Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03725/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03725-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Mijkia Carl Whittaker
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3725

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Mijkia Carl Whittaker, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 23, 2006

Filed: April 19, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mijkia Carl Whittaker appeals his 188-month sentence, imposed after he pled

guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). At sentencing, he objected to his classification as an armed

career criminal, citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The district court

concluded that Blakely does not apply to prior convictions, denied Whittaker's

objection, and sentenced him to 188 months in prison – the bottom of the 188 to 235

month recommended guideline range. Jurisdiction being proper under 18 U.S.C. §

3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court reverses and remands for resentencing.

Appellate Case: 04-3725 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2006 Entry ID: 2034862
-2-

By raising a Blakely challenge at sentencing, Whittaker properly preserved the

issue whether mandatory application of the sentencing guidelines is unconstitutional.

See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). While

this case does not present constitutional error because Whittaker did not object to facts

used to calculate his sentence, see United States v. Booker, 542 U.S. 220, 267 (2004),

the district court (understandably) erred by applying the guidelines as mandatory.

Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553. This necessitates harmless-error review, where the

government must establish that the error did not affect Whittaker's substantial rights.

See United States v. Garcia, 406 F.3d 527, 529 (8th Cir. 2005). By this standard, the

government must prove that the district court would have rendered the same sentence

if the guidelines were applied as advisory. See United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d

642, 644 (8th Cir. 2005). 

As in Haidley and Garcia, the district court here sentenced Whittaker to the

bottom of the recommended guidelines range, and the record does not indicate that the

sentence would have been the same if the guidelines were applied in an advisory

manner. See Haidley, 400 F.3d at 645; Garcia, 406 F.3d at 529. At sentencing, the

district court stated that it was doing "what I can" by sentencing Whittaker at the

bottom of the guidelines range. The government cannot meet its burden to show the

error was harmless.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case remanded for

resentencing. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3725 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2006 Entry ID: 2034862