1

 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Court Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3351

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Robert Lee Varnedore, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 20, 2005

Filed: September 13, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Robert Lee Varnedore pled guilty to a charge of possession of stolen firearms

and was sentenced by the district court.1

 Varnedore appeals his sentence arguing that

it was imposed in violation of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely

v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We affirm.
2

 The first objection was to paragraph 15 of the PSR which stated:

Specific Offense Characteristics: The defendant was in possession of at

least three firearms; therefore, the offense level is increased by two (2)

levels pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). 

The second objection was to paragraph 17 which stated:

Specific Offense Characteristics: The defendant used a firearm in

connection with the kidnaping, rape and assault of two female victims

on December 21, 2001. The offense level is increased by four (4) levels,

pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(5). 

-2-

I. Background 

On June 8, 2004, Robert Lee Varnedore entered a guilty plea to one count of

possession of stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2). In

exchange for his plea, prosecutors dismissed two other counts related to unlawful

firearms possession. The district court accepted the plea and ordered a Pre-Sentence

Report (“PSR”). The PSR recommended that the court impose three enhancements

to Varnedore’s sentence. 

Blakely was issued after Varnedore entered his plea, but prior to his sentencing,

which took place on September 16, 2004. On September 7, 2004, Varnedore

submitted to the court a “Supplemental Objection to the PSR Based on ‘Blakely

Ruling.’” In this document, Varnedore objected to two specific paragraphs of the PSR

which recommended particular enhancements to his sentence.2

At sentencing, the district court stated, “at the request of Mr. Varnedore, I’m

going to rely upon the [United States Sentencing] Guidelines as simply being

advisory in connection with any sentence I may impose, but you will be sentenced
3 The statutory range previously discussed by the court was up to ten years

imprisonment, which could have been consecutive with, or concurrent to,

Varnedore’s sentence from the United States District Court for the Northern District

of Oklahoma. 

4

 Each of these sentences stemmed from events that occurred on or about

December 21, 2001, when Varnedore traveled between Oklahoma and Arkansas.

The federal sentence in Oklahoma was also related to possession of firearms while

the state sentence in Arkansas was for robbery, kidnaping, and sexual assault.

5

 The Haack court also quoted additional language from Crosby which stated:

The applicable Guidelines range is normally to be determined in the

same manner as before Booker/Fanfan. Moreover, although the Court

in the Substantive Opinion prohibits a sentencing judge from finding

-3-

within the statutory range I previously listed for you.”3

 The district court sentenced

Varnedore to 63 months imprisonment, with 32 months consecutive to, and 31

months concurrent with, a 115-month sentence from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The entire sentence was to be served

concurrent with a 240-month state of Arkansas sentence.4

II. Analysis 

Because the district court treated the Guidelines as advisory, its sentence is

consistent with United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738, 750 (2005).

Varnedore argues that his sentence nonetheless violates Blakely because the district

court, in determining the Guidelines’ recommended sentence, relied on facts that

“were neither admitted by petitioner nor found by a jury.” This court has previously

stated, however, that “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. 2005) (adopting language from United

States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 113 (2d Cir. 2005)).5 This court also noted in United
any facts that enhanced a Guidelines sentence above the range that is

based solely on facts found by the jury in its verdict or admitted by the

defendant, the Court in its Remedy Opinion contemplates that, with the

mandatory use of the Guidelines excised, the traditional authority of a

sentencing judge to find all facts relevant to sentencing will encounter

no Sixth Amendment objection. Thus, the sentencing judge will be

entitled to find all of the facts that the Guidelines make relevant to the

determination of a Guidelines sentence and all of the facts relevant to

the determination of a non-Guidelines sentence.

Haack, 403 F.3d at 1003 (quoting Crosby, 397 F.3d at 112).

-4-

States v. Pirani that: “Nothing in Booker suggests that sentencing judges are required

to find sentence-enhancing facts beyond a reasonable doubt under the advisory

Guidelines regime.” 406 F.3d 543, 552 n.4. 

Although Varnedore objected to judicial fact-finding by the district court, he

did not offer any objection to the court’s calculation of the Guidelines’ recommended

sentence of 63 to 78 months in custody. The district court subsequently sentenced

Varnedore to 63 months, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that this

sentence was unreasonable. As such, the sentence does not contain any Booker error.

Pirani, 406 F.3d at 551 (“[T]he district court could have avoided Booker error by

declaring the Guidelines advisory . . . , determining the guidelines sentencing range

in the manner we have now upheld, and then imposing a ‘reasonable’ sentence.”) 

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________