Opinion ID: 77301
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Williams's Booker Challenge

Text: 71 Where, as here, there is a timely objection, we review a defendant's Booker claim in order to determine whether the error was harmless. 101 There are two harmless error standards, one of which applies to Booker constitutional errors, the other to Booker statutory errors. 102 Statutory errors are subject to the less demanding test that is applicable to non-constitutional errors. 103 A non-constitutional Booker error is harmless if, viewing the proceedings in their entirety, a court determines that the error did not affect the sentence, or had but very slight effect. 104 If one can say with fair assurance that the sentence was not substantially swayed by the error, the sentence is due to be affirmed even though there was error. 105 Because this is a Booker statutory error case we will apply that standard.
72 Williams was assessed (1) a two-level sentence enhancement for use of a computer for transmission, receipt or distribution of child pornography (2) a two-level sentence enhancement for possession of child pornography because the pornographic material at issue involved minors under age twelve, and (3) a four-level sentence enhancement because the material involved portrayed sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence. Because these enhancements were applied under a mandatory guidelines scheme, error occurred. 106 However, because Williams admitted to the factual basis for his sentence, which included the facts underlying these enhancements, there was no Sixth Amendment Booker error. 107 73 We conclude that, viewing the proceedings in their entirety, the sentence was not substantially swayed by the statutory error. Williams was sentenced above the bottom of the 57 to 71 month guideline range for the possession count, and the district court, exercising its discretion, expressly declined his request for a lower sentence within that range. The court also stated that, even if not bound by the guidelines, it had doubts that the sentence would be any lower, and it may have been higher. While the judge declined to issue an alternative sentence in anticipation of Blakely 's application to the guidelines given the then-settled state of that issue in this circuit, he explained his decision thoroughly enough that we are confident that he would not lower the sentence in this case on remand.