Opinion ID: 3015583
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Walker’s Apprendi/Booker Claim.

Text: In Walker’s opening brief, he makes an Apprendi argument (Booker in supplemental briefing) with regard to his sentencing under counts 5 and 6. The jury’s verdict form for each count convicted him of the two alleged crimes and specifically found with regard to each count that the quantity of cocaine base involved was 50 grams or more. At sentencing, the District Judge made use of findings involving other drugs 6 and amounts of cocaine base the jury did not expressly pass upon. We agree that this was plain error under Booker and vacate the sentence for counts 5 and 6. See Davis, 407 F.3d at 164 (ordering resentencing as plain error if the district court engaged in judicial fact finding and concomitantly “imposed a sentence greater than the maximum authorized by the facts found by the jury alone”). In supplemental briefing, Walker asserts for the first time an Apprendi/Booker violation of his Sixth Amendment rights with regard to Count 1. In the District Court’s sentencing proceedings, the District Judge, following the Sentencing Guidelines, grouped counts 1, 5, and 6 together. With regard to counts 5 and 6, the judge used a criminal history category of II and an offense level of 38. This provided a range of 262 to 327 months, where the statutory maximum for each count was life imprisonment. With regard to counts 5 and 6, the judge sentenced Walker to 321 months on each count running concurrently, an amount less than the statutory maximum, but within the guidelines. With regard to count 1, however, the judge sentenced at the statutory maximum: 240 months -- an amount less than that provided for under the applicable guidelines range. As explained above, on remand, the District Court will redetermine the applicable guidelines range for counts 5 and 6. Such a redetermination may equally apply to count 1. And such a redetermination might very well lead to a guidelines range below the 240 month statutory maximum. Given that the three counts were originally grouped together, and given that the judge believed that she was without any discretion to sentence anywhere but at the 7 statutory maximum for count 1 (because the guidelines range exceeded the statutory maximum), we agree with Walker and vacate the sentence for count 1 as plain error.4 See Davis, 407 F.3d at 166 (ordering resentencing as plain error if the district court acted in the mistaken belief that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory).