United States v. Ball , 182 F. App'x 306 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                               United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                         May 23, 2006
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 04-11291
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JACK EDWARD BALL,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:04-CR-93-ALL-P
    --------------------
    Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Jack Edward Ball appeals the sentence imposed following his
    guilty-plea conviction for two counts of theft or receipt of
    stolen mail matter, arguing that it violates the Sixth Amendment
    rule announced in Blakely v. Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
     (2004).
    Ball’s Blakely objection in the district court preserved whether
    Ball’s sentence violated United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005), for appeal.      Accordingly, we review for harmless error,
    which requires a showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
    circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 04-11291
    -2-
    district court would have imposed the same sentence if it had
    been operating under an advisory guidelines system.     See United
    States v. Pineiro, 
    410 F.3d 282
    , 284 (5th Cir. 2005).
    Our review of the record convinces us that the error in this
    case cannot be considered harmless.   Although the district court
    sentenced Ball at the top of the guideline range authorized by
    the then-mandatory guidelines range, that fact is insufficient,
    standing alone, to satisfy the Government’s burden.     See United
    States v. Woods, 
    440 F.3d 255
    , 258-59 (5th Cir. 2006).    The
    district court’s comments about the seriousness of Ball’s offense
    and the impact of his offense shed no additional light on what
    the court would have done if the Guidelines had been advisory;
    they may simply reflect why the court believed the sentence was
    appropriate within the mandatory guidelines framework.    Cf.
    United States v. Garza, 
    429 F.3d 165
    , 170 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.
    denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 1444
     (2006).
    Ball has abandoned on appeal his challenge to the district
    court’s calculation of his criminal history score.    See United
    States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 
    932 F.2d 1093
    , 1099 (5th Cir.
    1991).
    SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.