Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02515/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02515-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Latoya Rose Hourston
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2515

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Latoya Rose Hourston, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 30, 2004

Filed: June 10, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in this case, vacated

our judgment, and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See Hourston v. United States, 125 S. Ct.

989 (2005), granting cert. and vacating the judgment in United States v. Hourston,

No. 03-2515, 2004 WL 960034 (8th Cir. May 5, 2004) (unpublished per curiam). In

Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 749-51, the Court held that sentence enhancements based solely

on facts found by a court under mandatory federal sentencing guidelines violate the

sixth amendment, which the Court then remedied by making the sentencing

guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, id. at 764.

Appellate Case: 03-2515 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Entry ID: 1914161 
1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-2-

We have examined the relevant record and conclude that the defendant, Latoya

Hourston, did not preserve a Booker issue, and that she is not entitled to plain-error

relief because she cannot show that her substantial rights were affected, see United

States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550-53 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We therefore

conclude that Booker did not affect our previous opinion in this case. Accordingly

we reinstate our prior opinion and again affirm the sentence imposed by the district

court.1

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2515 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2005 Entry ID: 1914161