Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Wayne CLEAVER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-20
Citations: 203 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 04-40148
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Wayne CLEAVER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Wayne CLEAVER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40148
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 20, 2006.
Maureen Clancy Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Wayne Cleaver, Liberty, TX, pro se.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John Wayne Cleaver appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute or dispense 3, 4-methylenedioxy-methamphet-amine ("MDMA" or "ecstasy"), cocaine, methamphetamine and/or gamma/hydroxy-butyrate. See 21 U.S.C. § 846. Cleaver claims the court erred, pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), in assessing sentencing increases for relevant conduct based upon uncorroborated statements and for his leadership role in the offense. Cleaver's objections to the Presentence Investigation Report and at sentencing sufficiently apprised the court that he was making a Sixth Amendment objection to being sentenced based on facts not found by a jury. See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 376 (5th Cir.2005). The increases violated Cleaver's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury, and the Government has not met its burden of demonstrating the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 285-86 (5th Cir.2005).
SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.