Opinion ID: 2974159
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guidelines as Mandatory

Text: In Booker, the Supreme Court found the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines to be unconstitutional. The Court further determined the Guidelines should be viewed as advisory in the context of the overall sentencing scheme found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 543 U.S. at 245. This court subsequently held that a district court commits plain error when it sentences a defendant “under a mandatory Guidelines regime that has now become advisory.” United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516, 526 (6th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, under such circumstances, we presume that substantial rights of the defendant are affected. However, under circumstances where the trial court has determined a sentence pursuant to the Guidelines, but has also treated the Guidelines as advisory and sentenced the defendant pursuant to the factors in § 3553(a), the sentencing does not implicate the Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Chandler, 419 F.3d 484, 486 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Strbac, 129 Fed. Appx. 235, 238 (6th Cir. 2005). In the instant case, the district court explicitly stated that the sentence would be identical “using the guidelines as guidelines as distinguished from rules.” Furthermore, as discussed below in Section III.A.2., it is clear that this was no mere incantation; he actually did treat the Guidelines as advisory and fashioned an alternative sentence based on the § 3553(a) factors. Appellant argues that despite the district court’s statement on an identical sentence, resentencing is necessary because the sentence was “made at a time when the full import of the thenanticipated Booker decision was not known or appreciated.” This argument is not well-taken. The district judge anticipated the Booker decision by explicitly referencing Blakely and issuing an alternative sentence, pursuant to this court’s recommendation in United States v. Koch, No. 04-5477, 2004 WL 1870438 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2004). The Sixth Circuit has held such an alternative sentence does not run afoul of Booker, merely because it was imposed prior to that decision. See Strbac, 129 No. 04-2280 United States v. Caswell Page 4 Fed. Appx. at 238. Consequently, we find that the district court did not commit plain error by treating the Guidelines as mandatory in sentencing Defendant.1