Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John JOHNSON, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-15
Citations: 154 F. App'x 544
Docket Number: No. 04-2271
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John JOHNSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 154
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John JOHNSON, Appellant.
No. 04-2271.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 12, 2005.
Decided Nov. 15, 2005.
Thomas Christian Albus, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.
Michael Dwyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
John Johnson, Greenville, IL, pro se.
Before ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
John Johnson appeals his sentence of 40 months' imprisonment following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He asserts that because the United States Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional, the district court erred in giving them effect in sentencing him. It is true that in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the Supreme Court held that, with exceptions not relevant here, it was a violation of the sixth amendment to enhance a guideline sentence on the basis of facts not found by a jury. But in this case no enhancements were applied, so the basic Booker holding is of no avail to Mr. Johnson.
We recognize that the district court nevertheless erred in passing sentence because it treated the guidelines as mandato ry rather than advisory, see Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 756-57. But Mr. Johnson raised no objection to his sentence below, so we can review it for plain error only. We have examined the transcript of the sentencing hearing carefully and have discerned nothing in it that would indicate a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been shorter had the district court been aware that the guidelines were merely advisory. Mr. Johnson is thus not entitled to plain error relief. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 552 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 266, 163 L.Ed.2d 239 (2005).
Affirmed.
. The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.