Opinion ID: 794332
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines

Text: 9 Because Bockes preserved his challenge to the use of mandatory guidelines with a timely Blakely objection to the sentencing court, we review for harmless error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc). Bockes's sentencing guidelines range was ultimately determined solely from his status as a career offender with no enhancements based on judge-found facts, 4 so the error in using mandatory guidelines is not of constitutional magnitude. United States v. Londondio, 420 F.3d 777, 791 (8th Cir. 2005). Therefore, to prove harmless error, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that no grave doubt exists as to whether the defendant would have received a more favorable sentence under an advisory guidelines system. United States v. Perez-Ramirez, 415 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir.2005). We have found this burden met where the district court states at sentencing that it would impose the same alterative sentence if the Guidelines were deemed invalid. United States v. Craiglow, 432 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir.2005). 10 In this case, the Government asked the district court to impose an alternative sentence between the minimum and maximum of statutory punishment to apply in the event the guidelines-based sentence was invalidated. In response, the district court pronounced an identical alternative sentence of 151 months if the guidelines do not apply. While brief, this exchange is sufficient to show that no grave doubt exists as to whether Bockes would have received a more favorable sentence absent Booker error. See Craiglow, 432 F.3d at 819 (Grave doubt does not exist even if the district court's alternative sentence assumes the Guidelines to be wholly unconstitutional and not advisory.); United States v. Thompson, 403 F.3d 533, 535-36 (8th Cir.2005) (holding, where the district court insulated [the defendant's] sentence by announcing an identical alternative sentence should the Guidelines be held completely unconstitutional, that the district court's pronouncement of an identical alternative sentence renders any remand futile). Therefore, we find the district court's use of mandatory guidelines harmless in this instance.