1The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

OOOOOOOO

No. 07-3608

OOOOOOOO

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States District

v. * Court for the Eastern District of 

 * Arkansas, Western Division

Steve Anthony Ault, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

OOOOOOOOO

Submitted: June 11, 2008 

Filed: September 5, 2008

OOOOOOOO

Before SMITH and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM, District

Judge.1

________

PER CURIAM.

Steve Anthony Ault appeals the sentence imposed by the district court. We

affirm.
2The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. The Honorable George Howard originally sentenced

defendant to the imprisonment term of 51 months, but passed away before the case

was remanded. After remand, the case was reassigned to Judge Wright.

-2-

I. Background

After an initial sentence, appeal, and remand, the district court2 sentenced

defendant to 51 months’ imprisonment for possession of a sawed-off shotgun. The

sentence was based in part on defendant’s criminal history category of VI, including

a four point criminal history enhancement for several state misdemeanor convictions.

Defendant argued against counting the misdemeanors because he had not been

represented by counsel. In two of these misdemeanors, he was sentenced to dollar

fines without imprisonment (paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Presentence Report). In the

other two (paragraphs 26 and 27), defendant waived counsel. In the latter cases,

defendant neglected to pay the assessed fines, resulting in incarceration.

The district court overruled defendant’s objection and included the convictions

in his criminal history. Defendant appeals, again claiming his uncounseled

misdemeanors should not count toward his criminal history.

II. Analysis

This Court employs a de novo standard of review when considering challenged

criminal history sentencing enhancements. See United States v. Cook, 356 F.3d 913,

916 (8th Cir. 2004). 

Defendant claims that including the uncounseled misdemeanors in his criminal

history violates the Sixth Amendment. Under the Sixth Amendment, the government
-3-

must provide counsel for a defendant whose offense leads to actual jail time. See Scott

v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 374 (1979); Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 662 (2002).

This is sometimes called the “actual imprisonment” rule. See Shelton, id. The rule is

unavailing here.

In this case, the parties agree defendant pleaded guilty to four state

misdemeanors without benefit of counsel. In each case, he was ordered to pay a fine.

He was never imprisoned in two of the cases, barring application of the “actual

imprisonment” rule. Scott, id. The first two non-imprisonment cases are properly

included in defendant’s criminal history.

For the other two cases, defendant’s own actions led to his incarceration - he did

not pay the fine. In these cases, defendant’s “actual imprisonment” argument might

appear stronger. But appearances are deceiving, because defendant was not deprived

of counsel - he waived it. Just as one who waives a jury trial and proceeds by plea is

not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, so is one entitled to counsel

able to waive a lawyer’s services with no constitutional injury. The defendant’s waiver

eliminated any Sixth Amendment violation. Certainly, the defendant spent time in jail,

but this arose from his own failure to pay the fines. Ultimately, the simple fact of nonpayment cannot allow a defendant to erase a properly counted criminal act from his

criminal history. 

Defendant, next, suggests he is entitled to resentencing in light of the Supreme

Court’s recent decisions in Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007) and Kimbrough

v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007). He is mistaken. Both cases simply emphasized

the sentencing court’s discretion to impose a reasonable sentence. Any suggestion that

the district court did not understand the extent of its discretion is without support in the

record. The district court properly exercised its discretion. 
-4-

III. Conclusion

The district court properly calculated defendant’s criminal history and imposed

a reasonable sentence, as to which we find no flaw. We affirm.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO