1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3406

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Vance Campbell, also known as *

Richard Huff, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2005

Filed: April 13, 2005

___________

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

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vance Campbell appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least

500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), and 846. Campbell argues that the drug-quantity

calculation violated Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), that the entire

federal Sentencing Guidelines should be held unconstitutional, and that the case
-2-

should be remanded for resentencing under an indeterminate sentencing scheme. For

the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court. 

The Supreme Court recently decided in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005), that the reasoning in Blakely applies to the federal Sentencing Guidelines,

and therefore that “any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to

support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a

plea of guilty . . . must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a

reasonable doubt.” See id. at 756. The district court’s drug-quantity determination

did not implicate Campbell’s rights, however, because he stipulated to the drug

quantity in his plea agreement. See id.

Campbell was unconstitutionally sentenced, over his objection, under a

mandatory Guidelines system. See id. at 756-57 (federal Sentencing Guidelines are

merely advisory). We conclude, however, that he cannot show reversible error

because the district court specified that it would impose a sentence within the

Guidelines range even if the Guidelines were held to be not binding, and Campbell

was sentenced at the bottom of the undisputed Guidelines range. See United States

v. Sayre, No. 04-1330, 2005 WL 544819 at *2 (noting that, whether sentence was

reviewed for plain error or harmless error, affirmance was appropriate because

ultimate inquiry was whether district court’s error in following nonmandatory

sentencing scheme affected defendant’s ultimate sentence, and it was clear district

court wanted to impose sentence it felt appropriate on the undisputed facts, making

any remand futile); cf. Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 202-03 (1992) (when

district court misapplies Guidelines, remand is required unless reviewing court

determines, on basis of whole record, that error is harmless, i.e., error did not affect

district court’s selection of sentence imposed).

Finally, although Campbell does not specifically raise the issue, we find that

his sentence was not unreasonable. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764-67.
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________