Court Opinion

ID: 9498136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:09:03.189096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:38.532543
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would send this case back for resen-tencing, to allow the trial judge to consider adopting the base offense level of thirty-eight that the parties stipulated to in the plea agreement.
The district court was bound by mandatory sentencing guidelines, and the facts stipulated to in the plea agreement required a base offense level of forty-two. There was thus a contradiction between the level that the government and Keller agreed upon and the statutorily mandated level. The court adopted the statutorily mandated level.
Now that the Supreme Court has held that the guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, United States v. Booker, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court would be at liberty to adopt the lower base offense level that the government and Keller agreed upon. Our ordinary Booker plain error analysis, see United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir.2005), does not apply here. This case — in which the court was prevented by mandatory guidelines from giving effect to a plea agreement — is distinguishable from Pirani.
The district court should be given the opportunity to give effect to the plea agreement.
For this reason, I respectfully dissent.