Opinion ID: 201380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Blakely challenge

Text: 105 Castellini finally argues, for the first time on appeal, that his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing because the jury did not make a factual determination regarding the amount of laundered funds attributable to him under the sentencing guidelines, as he contends is required under Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Because Castellini did not raise this argument before the district court, review is for plain error. United States v. Morgan, 384 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.2004). To establish plain error, Castellini must demonstrate (1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear or obvious and which not only (3) affected [his] substantial rights, but also (4) seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir.2001). 106 Under existing pre- Blakely First Circuit precedent, the amount of laundered funds is a sentencing factor for determination by the court. See United States v. Robinson, 241 F.3d 115, 121 (1st Cir.2001) ([S]entence-enhancing facts still may be found by the judge under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard as long as those facts do not result in a sentence that exceeds the original statutory maximum.). Because the trial judge acted in accordance with circuit precedent (not yet clearly established to be erroneous), we cannot say plain error occurred, and we need not proceed further. Morgan, 384 F.3d at 8.