United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4201

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* 

v. *

*

Leo Muhammad, also known as Bo, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Appeals from the United States

No. 05-4204 District Court for the Eastern

___________ District of Missouri.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* 

v. *

*

Germaine Davis, also known as Gary *

Henderson, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

*
___________

No. 05-4205

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* 

v. *

*

Anthony Francis, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

*

___________

No. 05-4252

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* 

v. *

*

Robert Francis, also known as Pete, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 26, 2006

 Filed: November 6, 2006 

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________
1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

2

 United States v. Francis, 141 Fed. Appx. 501, 503 (8th Cir. 2005). Defendant

Leo Muhammad did not petition the Supreme Court for certiorari, but rather,

petitioned our court for rehearing. Following the Supreme Court’s remand of his codefendants’ cases, we granted rehearing as to defendant Leo Muhammad and

remanded his case for resentencing along with his co-defendants. Id.

-3-

PER CURIAM.

The defendants were each convicted of conspiring to distribute more than five

kilograms of cocaine. They were sentenced under the mandatory Guidelines regime

prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). Our court affirmed the judgment of the district court1

 as to all the convictions

and sentences. United States v. Francis, 367 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2004). In that

opinion, we discussed the facts of the underlying offenses at length and addressed the

defendants’ fact-based challenges regarding drug quantity determinations and various

enhancements under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Following Booker, the

Supreme Court granted three of the defendants’ petitions for certiorari, found Sixth

Amendment Booker error as to each defendant’s sentence, vacated our opinion, and

remanded to our court. Francis v. United States, 543 U.S. 1098 (2005); Davis v.

United States, 543 U.S. 1108 (2005); Francis v. United States, 543 U.S. 1180 (2005).

On remand from the Supreme Court, we remanded to the district court for

resentencing and reinstated our earlier opinion “except as may be inconsistent with the

remand for resentencing under the advisory guideline system as outlined in United

States v. Booker.”2 

On remand from our court, the district court applied the Guidelines as advisory,

applied the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and used the previously determined

Guidelines range for each defendant as the advisory Guidelines range. As to each

defendant, the district court determined that a recalculation of the Guidelines range
-4-

was not within the scope of our remand, and in the alternative, even if it were within

the scope of our remand, the district court renewed or re-adopted its prior Guidelines

calculations. Under the advisory regime, the district court reimposed the same

sentences for defendants Anthony Francis, Robert Francis, and Leo Muhammad. As

to these three defendants, the sentences were within their respective advisory

Guidelines ranges. Anthony Francis received a sentence of 420 months based on an

advisory range of 360 months to life. Robert Francis received a sentence of life based

on an advisory “range” of life. Leo Muhammad received a sentence of 360 months

based on an advisory range of 360 months to life. As to defendant Germaine Davis,

the district court imposed a sentence of 180 months. This sentence was below Davis’s

initial sentence of 235 months and below the low end of the applicable advisory

Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months.

All defendants appeal. All defendants challenge the district court’s use of facts

at sentencing found by the judge under a preponderance of the evidence standard. All

defendants challenge their respective sentences as unreasonable. We affirm.

As we have previously held, the remedial portion of Booker permits reliance

on facts found by the sentencing court under a preponderance of the evidence standard

as long as those facts are used to sentence under an advisory rather than a mandatory

Guidelines regime. United States v. Johnson, 450 F.3d 831, 833 (8th Cir. 2006). We

previously affirmed the district court’s sentencing-related factual findings, and the

district court properly interpreted the scope of our remand order. On remand, the

district court was aware of the advisory nature of the Guidelines and sentenced the

defendants under this advisory regime, thus correcting the Sixth Amendment, Booker

error.

Regarding reasonableness, our review is for abuse of discretion. United States

v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing reasonableness review as

review for abuse of discretion). The sentences received by defendants Robert Francis,
-5-

Anthony Francis, and Leo Muhammad are within the properly calculated advisory

Guidelines ranges and are therefore presumptively reasonable. United States v.

Lazenby, 439 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2006). Defendant Germaine Davis received a

downward variance from the applicable range, and he argues that his sentence should

be lower. We have considered each defendant’s arguments concerning reasonableness

and find them to be without merit. In applying § 3553(a), the district court did not

consider any improper factors, fail to consider important factors, nor commit any clear

error of judgment in the application of the those factors. Haack, 403 F.3d at 1004.

Although there are significant differences among the sentences received by these

defendants, the differences are easily explained by each defendant’s criminal history,

the different quantity of drugs attributed to each defendant, and each defendant’s role

in the underlying conspiracy. We find no abuse of discretion.

We have carefully considered the defendants’ other arguments, find them to be

without merit or outside the scope of our remand order, and summarily affirm under

Eighth Circuit Rule 47B.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________