Opinion ID: 2972682
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Re-sentencing Under Booker

Text: Clarkson’s primary argument is that his sentence violated his constitutional rights because it was based, in part, on judge-found facts under a preponderance of the evidence standard. In United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the mandatory federal 4 sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment by requiring judges to enhance the sentences of defendants based on facts not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant. To remedy this problem, the Court excised from the Sentencing Act the provisions making the guidelines mandatory. Booker instructs reviewing courts to apply its Sixth Amendment holding and its remedial interpretation of the Sentencing Act to all cases on direct review. Id. at 769. Booker further mandates that reviewing courts apply ordinary prudential doctrines, such as plain error review, to determine if re-sentencing is warranted. Id. Clarkson’s sentence was enhanced, pursuant to the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines in place at the time, based on facts found by the sentencing judge: namely, that Clarkson’s conduct recklessly endangered the aircraft pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A5.2(a)(2)(A). Thus, Clarkson’s sentence violates the Sixth Amendment under Booker. Since Clarkson failed to make a Sixth Amendment objection at sentencing, however, we conduct plain error review to determine if he must be resentenced. Under that test, “there must be (1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) and that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’” United States v. Oliver, 397 F.3d 369, 378 (6th Cir. 2005). If these three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice the forfeited error, “but only if (4) the error ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. (internal citation omitted). Clarkson’s sentence in violation of the Sixth Amendment constitutes error that is plain. See id. at 378-79. Moreover, according to this circuit’s precedent in United States v. Oliver, a sentence enhancement based on judge-found facts under a mandatory guidelines system necessarily affects 5 Clarkson’s substantial rights.1 See id. at 379-80. Finally, Oliver dictates that any sentencing error that leads to a violation of the Sixth Amendment by imposing a more severe sentence than is supported by the jury verdict automatically diminishes the integrity and reputation of the judicial system. Id. at 380. Therefore, Clarkson’s case must be remanded for re-sentencing.