United States v. Robert K. Brown , 206 F. App'x 640 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 06-1315
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the District
    v.                                 * of Nebraska.
    *
    Robert K. Brown,                         *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: September 26, 2006
    Filed: November 22, 2006
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Robert Brown entered a plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a
    firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In this appeal, Brown alleges that the
    district court erred by not making specific factual findings in response to his
    objections to the presentence investigation report (PSR). Brown objected to the PSR's
    calculation of an enhancement, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines
    Manual § 2K2.1(b)(4), that he possessed a stolen weapon. Brown also argues there
    was insufficient evidence to support the prior convictions listed in the PSR.
    The government concedes that the district did not make specific factual findings
    as set forth in Rule 32(i) with regard to Brown's 2K2.1(b)(4) objection. See Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) (district court must rule on the dispute or find that a ruling is
    unnecessary, when defendant objects to portions of the PSR). But the government
    argues, since Brown only made legal objections to the PSR (Brown objected by
    arguing that the enhancement was barred by Blakely1 and Apprendi2 because it was
    based on judge-found facts), the district court was not required to make findings
    pursuant Rule 32(i).
    We agree that Brown's objection was primarily legal in nature because it was
    based on Blakely and Apprendi, but it did have a factual component–that the district
    court, instead of a jury, was allowed to find facts supporting the enhancement. Clearly
    the legal component of his objection is without merit, United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005). Furthermore, a review of the sentencing transcript reveals that the
    district court implicitly overruled Brown's objection by applying the 2K2.1(b)(4)
    enhancement.
    In United States v. Moss, 
    138 F.3d 742
    (8th Cir. 1998), the defendant argued
    the district court erred by not making an express credibility finding as required by
    Rule 32, when Moss objected to factual portions of the PSR. We held that it was
    evident from the sentence given that the district court credited one witness's testimony
    over others. 
    Id. at 745.
    We stated that, "[t]hough an express credibility finding would
    have been preferable, in these circumstances the District Court's assessment of witness
    credibility is evident. We therefore find no violation of Rule 32." 
    Id. Similarly, an
    express ruling rejecting Brown's meritless objection would have been preferable in
    this case, but a review of the record indicates that the court implicitly considered, and
    rejected, Brown's Blakely and Apprendi arguments.
    1
    Blakely v. Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
    (2004).
    2
    Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    (2000).
    -2-
    Brown's second argument, that there was insufficient evidence to support the
    prior convictions listed in the PSR, is without merit. Brown does not argue that any
    of the convictions were constitutionally infirm. He simply argues that there was
    insufficient evidence that they existed because the government did not produce
    certified copies of the convictions.3
    At the sentencing hearing, government counsel engaged the probation officer
    in an extensive dialogue over whether those offenses actually existed. This query
    included questioning the probation officer about the copies of judgments and the
    computer criminal history printouts contained in the exhibits the officer had relied
    upon in preparing the PSR. Defense counsel cross-examined the probation officer
    regarding these issues. Accordingly, we find that there was sufficient evidence to
    support the prior convictions listed in the PSR. United States v. Stobaugh, 
    420 F.3d 796
    , 802-03 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 1093
    (2006). And, by the end of
    the hearing, Brown's counsel actually withdrew his objection to the sufficiency of the
    evidence on this issue, thereby waiving appellate review absent plain error. United
    States v. Ristine, 
    335 F.3d 692
    , 694 (8th Cir. 2003). Finding none, we affirm the
    district court.
    ______________________________
    3
    At the sentencing hearing, the probation officer disclosed that he relied upon
    Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 when preparing the PSR. These exhibits contained copies of
    judgments from Douglas County District Court, and computerized printouts of
    Brown's arrest record with the Omaha Police Department. Although the officer
    testified about these exhibits, the exhibits were never offered and received by the
    district court.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1315

Citation Numbers: 206 F. App'x 640

Judges: Loken, Beam, Gruender

Filed Date: 11/22/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024