Opinion ID: 168463
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relief/Preservation

Text: Having determined that the district court erred, we must next resolve whether Mr. Begay is entitled to relief. He failed to object in district court to the -24- court’s error. Ordinarily, this failure would require that we limit our review to plain error, see United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727, 732 (10th Cir. 2005) (en banc), so that we could set aside Mr. Begay’s sentence only if he demonstrates that “there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, we doubt that Mr. Begay could surmount the final requirement. See id. at 736-37. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances we have excused a defendant’s failure to object to an error by the district court when imposing sentence. We have relied on the provision in Fed. R. Crim. P. 51(b) that states, “If a party does not have the opportunity to object to a ruling or order, the absence of an objection does not later prejudice that party.” Mr. Begay argues: “The district court did not explain until it announced Mr. Begay’s sentence that it would not impose a sentence below the guideline range unless it found the guideline range to be unreasonable. Thus, the error was not apparent until it was too late to object.” Aplt. Br. at 33. In support of his position Mr. Begay cites United States v. Bartsma, 198 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1999). In Bartsma the district court imposed a special condition of supervised release without giving notice to the defendant. The defendant did not object to the condition, but this court ruled that the issue had not been waived. We stated: -25- Mr. Bartsma had no notice the district court was considering the special condition until the court stated its tentative sentence near the beginning of the sentencing hearing. . . . [T]he complete lack of notice made it impossible for the parties to anticipate the nature of the special condition and short-circuited the significance of any opportunity to comment. Bartsma, 198 F.3d at 1198; accord United States v. Bruce, No. 05-2150, 2006 WL 2349216, at  (10th Cir. Aug. 15, 2006). Although the sentencing error in this case was not imposition of a special condition of supervised release, it was an error that Mr. Begay would have had no reason to anticipate. Cf. United States v. Barajas, 331 F.3d 1141, 1144 (10th Cir. 2003) (issue was not preserved when “defense counsel had constructive notice that the challenged conditions of release might be imposed” and failed to object); United States v. Lopez-Flores, 444 F.3d 1218, 1220-21 (10th Cir. 2006) (reviewing for plain error the defendant’s claim that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court did not justify it under the § 3553(a) factors). Nothing in the record suggests that Mr. Begay should have been prepared for the district court’s novel interpretation of Booker. Indeed, the government makes no attempt to distinguish Bartsma. Accordingly, we will follow Bartsma in excusing Mr. Begay’s failure to object to the district court’s error at the time of pronouncing sentence. We must reverse and remand for resentencing unless the government can establish that the error was harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). But the government fails to argue harmless error. Nor could it do so successfully. The -26- sentence imposed was at the bottom of the Guidelines range. We cannot say whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence if it had properly understood the post-Booker legal landscape. This “places us in the zone of speculation and conjecture.” United States v. Labastida-Segura, 396 F.3d 1140, 1143 (10th Cir. 2005). Thus, remand is required so that the district court can determine whether it should impose a lower sentence, even though a sentence within the Guidelines range may indeed be reasonable.