United States v. Eric D. Anderson , 156 F. App'x 879 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-4003
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the Southern
    v.                                 * District of Iowa.
    *
    Eric Daniel Anderson,                    *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.            *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 7, 2005
    Filed: December 14, 2005
    ___________
    Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Eric Daniel Anderson appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to
    being a felon in possession of a firearm. Anderson argues the district court’s
    imposition of a U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4) enhancement to his sentence violated his Sixth
    Amendment rights as recognized in United States v. Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
     (2005).
    Because Anderson properly preserved a Booker objection and was erroneously
    sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines scheme, his sentence violated Booker. See
    United States v. Thomas, 
    422 F.3d 665
    , 669 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court committed
    error both in basing sentence on enhancements found by court at sentencing, and in
    failing to treat Guidelines as advisory). We conclude the error was not harmless,
    because the government failed to show the error did not affect Anderson’s substantial
    rights. See United States v. Haidley, 
    400 F.3d 642
    , 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005). Anderson
    was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range and we disagree with the
    government contention that the district court’s statements indicate the court would
    have given the same sentence under an advisory system. To the contrary, taken in
    context, the court’s statements reflect an intent to be lenient within its perceived
    discretion. See 
    id.
     (holding not harmless district court’s error in imposing sentence
    under mandatory Guidelines regime where court “made conscious decision” to
    sentence defendant to bottom of Guidelines range and defendant had raised several
    mitigating facts). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-4003

Citation Numbers: 156 F. App'x 879

Judges: Arnold, Fagg, Per Curiam, Smith

Filed Date: 12/14/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024