United States v. David L. Quigg , 152 F. App'x 551 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-3782
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Western District of Missouri.
    David L. Quigg,                         *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 7, 2005
    Filed: October 20, 2005
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    After David L. Quigg pleaded guilty to manufacturing and conspiring to
    manufacture a methamphetamine mixture containing 50 grams or more of actual
    methamphetamine, the district court1 sentenced Quigg to 93 months imprisonment and
    3 years supervised release. He appeals, and we affirm.
    On appeal Quigg argues that the district court violated the principles in Blakely
    v. Washington, 
    124 S. Ct. 2531
     (2004), by enhancing his sentence based on drug
    1
    The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    quantities that were neither charged in the indictment nor admitted by him, and by
    sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory sentencing scheme that is no longer
    constitutional. This argument fails. A district court commits error by enhancing a
    defendant’s sentence based on judge-found facts pursuant to a mandatory Guidelines
    scheme, see United States v. Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    , 756, 764 (2005); United States
    v. Salter, 
    418 F.3d 860
    , 862 (8th Cir. 2005), and here, the district court relied on facts
    in the presentence report (PSR) showing that Quigg was accountable for drugs having
    a marijuana equivalency of 3,496 kilograms. Quigg does not contend on appeal,
    however, that the facts recited in the PSR do not support the drug amount attributable
    to him, and having failed in the district court to object specifically to the factual
    allegations, Quigg is deemed to have admitted these facts for purposes of Booker. See
    United States v. McCully, 
    407 F.3d 931
    , 933 (8th Cir. 2005).
    The district court did err under Booker by applying the Guidelines as a
    mandatory sentencing scheme, see Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764 (holding Guidelines to
    be only advisory), and Quigg preserved the error at sentencing by invoking Blakely,
    see United States v. Pirani, 
    406 F.3d 543
    , 549-50 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), petition
    for cert. filed, (U.S. July 27, 2005) (No. 05-5547). Nevertheless, we conclude that the
    government has shown that the error is harmless. See United States v. Haidley, 
    400 F.3d 642
    , 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005). At sentencing, the district court discussed at length
    why it had chosen a sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range. The court
    expressed disappointment that Quigg had chosen to blame others for his criminal
    conduct. The court also commented that it was troubled by Quigg’s post-plea
    repeated use of methamphetamine, and that it was declining to sentence him at the
    bottom of the Guidelines range as a consequence for that behavior, and to deter similar
    conduct in others. The court added that the sentence imposed was adequate to address
    the criminal conduct, and thus that there was no reason to go to the top of the
    Guidelines range. In these circumstances, we harbor no “grave doubt whether the
    application of the mandatory guidelines substantially influenced the district court’s”
    selection of Quigg’s sentence. See United States v. Brooks, 
    417 F.3d 982
    , 985 (8th
    -2-
    Cir. 2005) (mandatory application of the Guidelines was harmless error where district
    court “sentenced [defendant] to the middle of the applicable guideline range, stating
    explicitly that it did not ‘believe that this is a low end of the guidelines case’” and “it
    consider[ed] the need for adequate punishment, deterrence, and protection of the
    public”).
    Accordingly, we affirm Quigg’s sentence.
    ______________________________
    -3-