Opinion ID: 2789414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Drug House Enhancement

Text: Grandison also challenges her sentence as procedurally flawed, proposing the district court miscalculated her Guidelines range. The district court applied a twolevel enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) because Grandison maintained a place for drug distribution, resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to life. The parties now agree that this specific enhancement did not take effect until November 1, 2010, two years after Grandison ceased her drug activities. Though Grandison did not object to the enhancement on ex post facto grounds before the district court, she now raises the issue on appeal. We again review for plain error. See United States v. Campbell, 764 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 2014). The government concedes the district court should not have applied the enhancement and Grandison’s advisory Guidelines range should have been 292 to 365 months. The government further concedes this error is plain. Therefore, the issue before us is the fact-specific question of whether the error affected Grandison’s substantial rights. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We hold that it did. “In the sentencing context, an error affects a defendant’s ‘substantial rights’ when the error is prejudicial, and ‘an error is prejudicial only if the defendant proves a reasonable probability that he would have received a lighter sentence but for the error.’” United States v. Horton, 756 F.3d 569, 580 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Franklin, 695 F.3d 753, 757 (8th Cir. 2012)); see also Pirani, 406 F.3d at 551-53. We previously have held that a sentence at the low end of an erroneous Guidelines range is not enough by itself to establish a reasonable probability of a lighter sentence but for the error, and we reaffirm that principle. See United States v. Bain, 586 F.3d 634, 640 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553. However, Grandison has shown more than just a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. -7- At sentencing, the district court requested the recommendation of the government, which responded: “We’re satisfied with the bottom of the guidelines.” The district court then stated: I accept the position of your attorney, you weren’t a ring leader, but you were sure a dependable and regular and consistent supplier in operations. I’m going to assess your punishment at 360 months. I’ll take the government’s recommendation, which is – it’s a lot of time although I could go to life, but I’m going to stay with the 360. This statement is the primary insight into the district court’s determination of Grandison’s sentence. The district court did not make an alternative holding based solely on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and seems to have relied upon the government’s recommendation. While the district court’s statements alone do not move us past speculation of what may have happened without the error, see Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553, the government’s concessions at oral argument on appeal—(1) it probably would have recommended the bottom of the correctly calculated advisory Guidelines range, and (2) the district court probably would have taken that recommendation—do. Taking the district court’s statements and the government’s concessions together, we find there is a reasonable probability that, but for the error, Grandison would have received a lesser sentence. We therefore exercise our discretion to recognize the plain error, see id. at 550, and remand for resentencing.