1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3248

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Rex Layne Bassinger, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2006

Filed: June 6, 2006

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rex Bassinger pleaded guilty to possessing pseudoephedrine for the purpose

of manufacturing methamphetamine and was sentenced to 240 months of

imprisonment. Bassinger appealed and we remanded for resentencing pursuant to

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Upon remand, the district court1

sentenced Bassinger below the applicable advisory guideline range to 216 months of

imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Bassinger now appeals, arguing
-2-

the district court erred by applying various enhancements based upon facts neither

admitted nor found by a jury and by imposing an unreasonable sentence. Bassinger

does not argue the district court committed factual error. Accordingly, our review of

the court’s interpretation and application of the guidelines is de novo, United States

v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005), and we must determine whether the

court abused its discretion in imposing an unreasonable sentence. United States v.

Dalton, 404 F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 2005).

 

Bassinger’s judicial factfinding claim is without merit. When a district court

treats the guidelines as advisory, it commits no Sixth Amendment error by finding

facts necessary to apply an enhancement. See United States v. Salter, 418 F.3d 860,

862 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1399 (2006). Indeed, we have held “the

sentencing judge is entitled to find all the facts appropriate for determining either a

Guidelines sentence or a non-Guidelines sentence.” United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d

997, 1002 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). Accordingly, the district

court committed no error when calculating the applicable guideline range.

Bassinger next argues the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence.

Bassinger’s sentence was twenty-four months below the statutory maximum and

presumptively reasonable guideline range. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d

716, 717-18 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). The sentencing transcript

establishes the district court considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and

imposed a lower nonguideline sentence after consideration of those factors. Bassinger

has not presented any evidence or argument that the district court based its sentence

upon an irrelevant factor, failed to consider a relevant factor, or made a clear error of

judgment so as to prejudice him. See Haack, 403 F.3d at 1004. Accordingly, we

conclude the ultimate sentence, which is two years less than the statutory maximum

and the effective advisory guideline range, is reasonable.

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________