Court Opinion

ID: 9494042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:27:29.18421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:11.111685
License: Public Domain

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I think that in this case the district court erred in enhancing Mr. Davis’s criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(e), a matter that the court omits to decide because it believes that the error, if any, was harmless. I respectfully disagree with that conclusion. It is true that the enhancement did not result in a change in Mr. Davis’s criminal history category, and therefore that the district court’s sentence lay within the correct sentencing range. But I suggest that that does not make the error harmless, because the district court might have sentenced Mr. Davis at a different point in the sentencing guidelines range if it had correctly calculated his criminal history points.
We held in United States v. Thomas, 20 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.1994) (en banc) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 828, 115 S.Ct. 98, 130 L.Ed.2d 47 (1994), that the use of an unlawful consideration in sentencing was a violation of law that required resentencing even though the guideline range remained unaffected by the error. This is exactly what occurred in this case. In Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992), moreover, the Court held that once a court of appeals decides that a misapplication of the guidelines has occurred, “a remand is appropriate unless the reviewing court concludes, on the record as a whole, that the error was harmless, i.e., that the error did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.” Since I am not satisfied that the district court would have given Mr. Davis the same sentence had the court not committed a legal error, I would remand for resentencing. Cf. United States v. Tiger, 223 F.3d 811, 812-813 (8th Cir.2000).
I therefore respectfully dissent.