## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3372

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Nebraska. * Ernest M. Hanan, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 26, 2006 Filed: June 12, 2006 (Corrected on: 06/19/06)

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ernest Hanan pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute at l east 5 grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) and 846. After the Supreme Court issued its decision in Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), but before its decision in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court sentenced Hanan under a mandatory Guidelines regime. Specifically, at the sentencing hearing, the district court found a total offense level of 29, and a criminal history category of IV, which resulted in a Guidelines imprisonment range of 121-151 months. Stating that a 10-year term was “more than enough,” th e court sentenced Hanan to 121 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release.-2- On appeal, Hanan first renews a challenge, based on Blakely , he made to the presentence report’s drug-quantity recomme ndation, but this argument fails because Brown admitted responsibility for 50-150 gr ams of actual methamphetamine. See United States v. Alvarado-Rivera , 412 F.3d 942, 946 n.3 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights notviolated where defendant admitted responsibility for drug quantity), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1096 (2006).
We conclude, however, that the distri ct court erred, understandably, in sentencing Hanan under a mandatory Guidelin es regime that re mains valid only as advisory. See Booker , 543 U.S. at 243-45. Because Ha nan preserved the issue, see United States v. Pirani , 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (Booker error preserved if defendant argued Blakelyerror below), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005), the government has the burden to prove that the district court’s use of the Guidelines as mandatory was harmless, see United States v. Love , 419 F.3d 825, 828- 29 (8th Cir. 2005). In other words, the government must prove there is no “grave doubt” about whether application of mandato ry Guidelines substantially influenced the outcome of the sentencing proceeding. See United States v. Ellis , 417 F.3d 931, 934 (8th Cir. 2005). The government cannot meet its burden in this case. The district court sentenced Hanan at the bottom of th e Guidelines range, and stated that this sentence was “more than enough,” even after granting Hanan’s motion for a downward departure related to his ove rstated criminal history. SeeUnited States v. Cullen , 432 F.3d 903, 905-06 (8th Cir. 2006) (error in imposing sentence under mandatory Guidelines not harmless where court sentenced defendant to bottom of Guidelines range); Love , 419 F.3d at 829 (same); Ellis , 417 F.3d at 933-34 (same); United States v. Haidley , 400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005) (same).

We therefore remand for resent encing in accordance with Booker

.

____________________