Opinion ID: 2972190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sixth Amendment Violations at Sentencing

Text: - 14 - Nos. 02-1738, 02-2214 United States v. Makki/Boudreau Finally, Boudreau argues in a supplemental pro se brief that his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment rights, under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ----, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Following briefing, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ----, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), holding that the Sixth Amendment requires facts necessary for sentencing to be found by a jury, and rendering the federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory. Neither Blakely nor Booker having been decided at the time of Boudreau’s sentencing, he did not raise any Sixth Amendment claims before the sentencing court. Accordingly, as with all constitutional claims raised for the first time on appeal, we review Boudreau’s sentence for plain error. See, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466 (1997). In a supplemental brief submitted by counsel following Booker, Boudreau also argues that the very fact that he was sentenced under a mandatory sentencing system itself warrants resentencing, and notes that the sentence imposed upon him was at the lowest end of the Guideline range calculated by the sentencing judge. Given the lack of clear and specific evidence that the district court would not have imposed a lower sentence had the Guidelines been applied in an advisory fashion, we must vacate Boudreau’s sentence and remand for sentencing. See United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516, 523-31 (6th Cir. 2005).