United States v. Woods , 440 F.3d 255 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                           United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    January 24, 2006
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    _____________________                    Clerk
    No. 04-11058
    ____________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    GREGORY WAYNE WOODS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    __________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    For the Northern District of Texas
    __________________
    Before DAVIS, SMITH and      DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
    Gregory Wayne Woods pleaded guilty to a single count of bank
    fraud in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1344
    .          He appeals his 46-month
    sentence pursuant to United States v. Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    (2005).     Because Woods preserved his claim of error and the
    Government cannot demonstrate the error was harmless, we VACATE
    Woods’    sentence   and   REMAND   to   the   district   court      for    re-
    sentencing.
    1
    I.
    On May 7, 2004, Woods pleaded guilty to one count of bank
    fraud, prohibited by 
    18 U.S.C. § 1344
    .              A pre-sentence report
    (“PSR”) calculated Woods’ total offense level at 19, including a
    seven-level    increase    because   the   amount     of   loss   was   between
    $120,000 and $200,000, a two-level increase because the offense
    involved more than minimal planning, and a four-level increase
    because of Woods’ role as an organizer or leader who recruited
    and instructed participants in a criminal activity that involved
    five or more participants.      A total offense level of 19 combined
    with a criminal history category III resulted in a recommended
    Sentencing Guideline range of 37 to 46 months of imprisonment.
    In addition, the PSR recommended an upward departure because
    Woods’ criminal history score under-represented the seriousness
    of his criminal history or the likelihood that he would commit
    additional crimes.
    Woods objected to the PSR on the basis of Apprendi v. New
    Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 490 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 
    124 S. Ct. 2531
    ,   2537   (2004),    arguing   that    the   findings     which
    resulted in enhancements totaling 13 levels were based on facts
    to which he had not admitted nor had been found by a jury.
    Nonetheless, the district court adopted the factual findings of
    2
    the   PSR    and     concluded     that    the    13   level    enhancement        was
    appropriate.1        The court did not adopt the PSR’s recommendation
    to depart upwardly, however, but stated:                  “Well, it’s a close
    call, but I’m not going to upwardly depart in this case.                          I am
    going to impose a sentence at the top of the guideline range.”
    The district court sentenced Woods to 46 months in prison, the
    top of the applicable guideline range including the enhancements.
    The court also ordered Woods’ sentence to run consecutively to
    any sentence imposed by the state court in an unrelated criminal
    proceeding then pending against Woods’, ordered Woods to pay
    $129,324 in restitution, and ordered Woods to serve three years
    of supervised release.
    Woods now appeals his sentence, arguing that the Supreme
    Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    (2005),     confirms    that     the   sentence    imposed     upon    him   by    the
    district     court    violated     the    6th    Amendment.      The    Government
    concedes, as it must, that the district court erred by enhancing
    Woods’ offense level under the pre-Booker mandatory guidelines
    system based on facts to which Woods did not admit and not found
    1
    Woods objected to the facts set forth in the PSR supporting
    the enhancements to which he did not admit.      The district
    court overruled the objection. Woods does not challenge the
    sufficiency of the evidence for the court's factual findings
    or otherwise object to the enhancements themselves on appeal.
    3
    beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.             The Government argues,
    however, that such an error was harmless, based principally on
    the district court’s decision to impose a sentence at the top of
    the applicable guidelines range.
    II.
    When a Sixth Amendment claim under Booker “is preserved in
    the district court by an objection, we will ordinarily vacate the
    sentence and remand, unless we can say the error is harmless
    under rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
    United States v. Mares, 
    402 F.3d 511
    , 520 n. 9 (5th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 43
     (2005); see also United States v. Olano,
    
    507 U.S. 725
    , 734 (1993) (noting that harmless error standard
    applies when defendant makes timely objection to error).
    “Harmless error is ‘[a]ny defect, irregularity, or variance
    that does not affect substantial rights’ of the defendant, and
    ‘arises when the mistake fails to prejudice the defendant.’”
    United States v. Akpan, 
    407 F.3d 360
    , 376 (5th Cir.2005) (quoting
    FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a)).       “[T]he government must bear the burden
    of demonstrating that the error was harmless by demonstrating
    beyond a reasonable doubt that the federal constitutional error
    of   which   the   defendant   complains   did   not   contribute   to   the
    sentence that he received.”       
    Id. at 377
     (citations omitted); see
    4
    also Olano, 
    507 U.S. at 734
     (noting that the inquiry to determine
    prejudice is the same between plain error and harmless error, but
    that the defendant, rather than the government, bears the burden
    of   persuasion   with   respect   to   prejudice     under   plain-error
    review); Chapman v. California, 
    386 U.S. 18
    , 24, 
    87 S.Ct. 824
    , 
    17 L.Ed.2d 705
     (1967) (holding that “before a federal constitutional
    error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a
    belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”).              Put
    another way, an error is deemed harmless only if the government
    proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not affect the
    outcome of the district court proceedings.          See United States v.
    Pineiro, 
    410 F.3d 282
    , 285(5th Cir. 2005).
    A.
    The Government points to the fact that the district court
    sentenced Woods to 46 months of imprisonment, the top of the
    guidelines-determined range, in an attempt to meet its burden
    under the harmless error standard. This court has previously
    addressed the effect of maximum and minimum sentences within the
    guidelines-determined range only in the context of plain-error
    review.   In United States v. Rodriguez-Gutierrez, 
    428 F.3d 201
    (5th Cir. 2005), this court observed that prior cases had given
    varying weight to the relationship between the actual sentence
    5
    imposed and the range of sentences provided by the Guidelines,
    and noted that “[s]entences that fall at the absolute maximum of
    the Guidelines provide the strongest support for the argument
    that the judge would not have imposed a lesser sentence.”   
    Id. at 204
    .   Similarly, “sentences following at the absolute minimum of
    the Guidelines provide the strongest support for the argument
    that the judge would have imposed a lesser sentence.”       
    Id. at 205
    .   However, we cautioned, “we do not suggest that a defendant
    sentenced at the absolute maximum of the range provided by the
    Guidelines will never be able to show that his substantial rights
    were affected.”   Id.2
    2
    Other Circuits have also found a sentence imposed at the top
    of the Guidelines-determined range to be persuasive evidence
    against substantial prejudice under plain-error review. See
    United States v. Brennick, 
    405 F.3d 96
    , 101-02 (1st Cir. 2005)
    (“Given the court's exercise of discretion to sentence at the
    most severe end of the range and its assertion that it would
    have given a more severe sentence if it had the latitude to do
    so, we can see no reasonable probability that the court would
    have sentenced more leniently had it understood that it was
    not constrained by the Guidelines.”); United States v.
    Gonzalez-Mercado, 
    402 F.3d 294
    , 304 (1st Cir. 2005) ("When,
    under a mandatory guidelines regime, a sentencing court has
    elected to sentence the defendant substantially above the
    bottom of the range, that is a telling indication that the
    court, if acting under an advisory guidelines regime, would in
    all likelihood have imposed the same sentence."); United
    States v. Mozee, 
    405 F.3d 1082
    , 1091-92 (10th Cir. 2005)
    (“Because the court decided to maximize punishment rather than
    exercise leniency where it had discretion, there is no basis
    for us to assume Mr. Mozee would receive a lesser sentence if
    he were resentenced under a discretionary sentencing regime in
    which the district court is required to ‘consider’ the
    guidelines when it exercises its discretion.”), cert. denied,
    6
    The imposition of a sentence at the maximum end of the
    Guidelines-determined        range,      however,    is   less   persuasive       when
    considered under the harmless-error standard.                    When a defendant
    fails to preserve Booker error with an objection in the district
    court, the sentence imposed is reviewed for plain error, and the
    burden    is    on   the    defendant      to   demonstrate       “a    probability
    sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”                          Id. at
    203.     When reviewing for harmless error, however, the Government
    bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    Booker error did not affect the outcome of the district court
    proceedings.      See Pineiro, 
    410 F.3d at 285
    .
    Although a judge sentencing a defendant at the top of the
    applicable range under the pre-Booker sentencing regime may be
    enough to prevent that defendant from undermining confidence in
    the outcome when reviewed for plain error, it does not follow
    that the same sentence is enough to satisfy the burden on the
    Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence
    would not have been different under the post-Booker advisory
    regime.     Instead, the Government must shoulder the heavy burden
    of demonstrating that the district court would not have imposed a
    different      sentence    under   the    advisory    regime—in        essence,   the
    
    126 S. Ct. 253
     (2005).
    7
    Government must prove a negative. Such proof is certainly not
    impossible, but where the Government’s principal evidence is a
    sentence at the top of the range determined by the Guidelines
    under   a   mandatory    sentencing    regime,      the   Government       has    not
    carried its burden.
    Our conclusion that a sentence imposed at the top of the
    Guidelines-determined      range    might    be   sufficient    to    prevent      a
    defendant    from   prevailing     under    plain-error     review,    but        not
    sufficient to demonstrate that a Booker error was harmless beyond
    a reasonable doubt is consistent with the law of at least two
    other Circuits.         The Seventh Circuit has recognized the same
    distinction in its decisions.          That court found, like this Court
    found in Rodriguez-Gutierrez, that a sentence at the top of the
    Guidelines-determined      range,     especially     when   combined       with    an
    upward departure, prevented a defendant from prevailing under
    plain-error review.        See United States v. Cunningham, 
    405 F.3d 497
    , 504-05 (7th Cir. 2005).           However, the Seventh Circuit has
    also concluded that under the harmless-error standard “even a
    term of imprisonment at the top of the range ‘does not rule out
    the   possibility   that    the    judge    might   have    imposed    a    lesser
    sentence had he known that the Guidelines did not bind him.’”
    United States v. Carroll, 
    412 F.3d 787
    , 794 (7th Cir. 2005)
    8
    (quoting United States v. Della Rose, 
    403 F.3d 891
    , 907 (7th
    Cir.2005)).
    Our decision is also consistent with the law of the Second
    Circuit.   In United States v. Lake, 
    419 F.3d 111
     (2d Cir. 2005),
    that court addressed the argument made by the Government that a
    sentence well above the bottom of the Guidelines-determined range
    demonstrated   that   any   Booker       error   was   harmless   beyond   a
    reasonable doubt.     The court disagreed, and found that such an
    argument overlooks three important aspects of sentencing under
    the post-Booker regime:
    First, the fact that a judge selects a sentence within
    a guideline range that the judge thought he was
    required to apply does not necessarily mean that the
    same sentence would have been imposed had the judge
    understood the Guidelines as a whole to be advisory.
    The applicable guideline range provides the frame of
    reference   against   which   the    judge   chooses   an
    appropriate sentence. In this case, for example, Judge
    Block might have thought that once the Commission
    specified the range it deemed appropriate for offense
    conduct like Lake's, the details of Lake's offense
    conduct were sufficiently serious to warrant punishment
    somewhat high in that range, but he might also have
    thought that a somewhat lower sentence would have been
    appropriate if he was selecting a sentence without
    regard to a Commission-prescribed range.          Second,
    although even before Booker, a sentencing judge was
    obliged to consider all the factors set forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a), the required use of one of those
    factors--the Guidelines--rendered of “uncertain import”
    the significance of the other factors.      Now, without
    the   mandatory   duty   to    apply    the   Guidelines,
    consideration of the other section 3553(a) factors
    “acquires renewed significance,” and might result in a
    9
    different sentence.   Third, absent the strictures of
    the Guidelines, counsel would have had the opportunity
    to urge consideration of circumstances that were
    prohibited as grounds for a departure.
    
    Id. at 114
    .    As the Second Circuit stated in Lake, we cannot say
    it is likely that the district court in this case would have
    imposed a different sentence upon Woods under the post-Booker
    sentencing regime, “but the Government has not shown that the
    possibility   is     so   remote   as   to   render   the   sentencing   error
    harmless.”    Id.3
    B.
    The Government next argues that the district court’s order
    that the federal sentence imposed run consecutively with any
    sentence imposed in Woods’ pending state criminal proceedings
    demonstrates that the Booker error was harmless.              This court has
    3
    The Tenth Circuit has disagreed with this approach, and in
    United States v. Riccardi, that court held that a
    constitutional Booker error was harmless where the district
    court sentenced at the top of the range. See 
    405 F.3d 852
    ,
    874-75 (10th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 
    126 S. Ct. 299
     (2005).
    The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Riccardi, however, provides
    little analysis in support of this conclusion, instead relying
    on the Sixth Circuit opinion in United States v. Bruce, an
    opinion that concludes only that a sentence at the top end of
    the Guidelines-determined range was probative under the plain-
    error standard, not the harmless error standard. Moreover,
    the Sixth Circuit’s opinion on these grounds in Bruce was
    later vacated, and the defendant’s sentence vacated and
    remanded for resentencing. See U.S. v. Bruce, 
    396 F.3d 697
    ,
    720 (6th Cir. 2005), vacated, 
    405 F.3d 1034
     (6th Cir. Apr 07,
    2005). We find the Tenth Circuit’s approach less persuasive
    than that followed by the Second and Seventh Circuits.
    10
    recognized     that     the       imposition       of    consecutive     sentences     may,
    under some circumstances, demonstrate that a Booker error was
    indeed harmless.            In an unpublished decision, we determined that
    Booker error was harmless where the sentencing court expressly
    refused to run the defendant’s federal Guidelines sentence with
    his previously imposed state sentence.                      United States v. Prones,
    
    145 Fed. Appx. 481
    , 482 (5th Cir. 2005) (unpublished); see also
    United    States      v.     Garza,    
    429 F.3d 165
    ,   170     (5th   Cir.   2005)
    (identifying imposition of consecutive sentences as one of only
    two circumstances in which this court has found Booker error to
    be harmless).
    However,     whether         imposition       of    consecutive      sentences     is
    sufficient to demonstrate that a Booker error is harmless is a
    fact-sensitive inquiry that must examine the relationship between
    the two sentences imposed.              In this case, Woods’ PSR reveals that
    the charges pending against him in state court were unrelated to
    the     federal    charges,          based    on        entirely      unrelated   conduct
    occurring      during       a    different     time      period.        This   Court    has
    previously said that “consecutive sentencing is an appropriate
    mechanism for imposing distinct punishment for separate criminal
    acts,    and   that     a       defendant    has    no    right    to   have   concurrent
    sentences imposed for two totally unrelated offenses.”                                United
    11
    States v. Olivares-Martinez, 
    767 F.2d 1135
    , 1137 (5th Cir. 1985)
    (citations omitted).
    Where the imposition of consecutive sentencing is based or
    appears to be based on the unrelated federal and state charges,
    we decline to ascribe any motivation to the district court other
    than adherence to the default rule that totally unrelated crimes
    should   ordinarily    receive    distinct     punishment.       The     mere
    imposition   of   consecutive    sentences    for   unrelated   crimes   has
    little or no probative value tending to demonstrate that the
    Booker error in this case was harmless.
    C.
    The Government also points to the fact that the district
    court considered and narrowly rejected an upward departure based
    on the recommendation of the PSR.4           The fact that the district
    court carefully weighed the recommendation of the PSR to impose
    an upward departure, and chose not to do so, is not a factor
    which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the court’s Booker
    error was harmless.      The court did not impose such an upward
    4
    This recommended departure was based on U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3,
    p.s., which provides that if “reliable information indicates
    that the criminal history category does not adequately reflect
    the seriousness of the defendant’s past criminal conduct or
    the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes,
    the court may consider imposing a sentence departing from the
    otherwise applicable guideline range.”
    12
    departure,      and    his   decision   not    to    do   so   does   not    give   us
    confidence      that    the    district     court     would    have    imposed      an
    identical sentence under the post-Booker sentencing regime.5
    D.
    Finally, the Government argues that the district court’s
    Booker error is harmless here because there is no basis in the
    record for concluding that Woods would have received a lesser
    sentence   if    the    district   court       had   proceeded    under      advisory
    guidelines.      This argument, however, misconceives the burden of
    proof where the defendant preserves the Booker error with an
    objection, as Woods did here.           It is the Government's burden, not
    Woods’, to prove that the sentence imposed would be the same.
    This    court    previously      rejected      similar     arguments        from    the
    Government in United States v. Pineiro, 
    410 F.3d 282
    , 285 (5th
    Cir.2005) and United States v. Lopez-Urbina, --- F.3d ---, 2005
    5
    Indeed, this court has noted that even a departure actually
    imposed by the district court in some cases may not be enough
    to demonstrate that a Booker error was harmless beyond a
    reasonable doubt. See United States v. Garza, 
    429 F.3d 165
    ,
    171 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Yet, even a discretionary departure
    decision is informed by the Guidelines and ‘thus sheds little
    light on what a sentencing judge would have done knowing that
    the guidelines were advisory.’”) (quoting United States v.
    Schlifer, 
    403 F.3d 849
    , 854 (7th Cir. 2005)); see also Burke
    v. United States, 
    425 F.3d 400
    , 417 (7th Cir. 2005). Because
    the district court declined to depart upwardly, we need not
    address that question in this case.
    
    13 WL 1940118
    , *12 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2005), cert. denied 
    126 S. Ct. 672
     (2005).      In Pineiro, this court stated:
    Although this argument would be persuasive under plain-
    error review, this argument fails to show that the
    preserved error was harmless. It is the government that
    must show that the sentencing judge would have imposed
    the same sentence under an advisory sentencing scheme.
    The judge's silence as to whether or not he would have
    imposed a different sentence under an advisory regime
    does not satisfy this burden. If we were to accept this
    argument to find that the error was harmless, we would
    effectively be relieving the government of its burden
    and placing it on the defendant.
    Pineiro, 
    410 F.3d at 286
    .         As in Pineiro, the Government in this
    instance has the burden to prove that the district court's error
    was   harmless    by    showing   that    the   district   court    would   have
    imposed the same sentence under the post-Booker advisory regime.
    Woods’ inability to point to evidence in the record that the
    district   court       would   have   imposed    a   different     sentence    is
    irrelevant under harmless error analysis. Because it is unclear
    whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence,
    the error cannot be considered harmless.
    III.
    The arguments made by the government are insufficient to
    demonstrate that the Booker error in this case was harmless.                  The
    only factor tending to show that that the district court might
    have imposed the same sentence under the post-Booker sentencing
    14
    regime    is    the     imposition    of     a    sentence    at     the    top    of   the
    Guidelines range.            However, for reasons discussed above, such a
    sentence       is    insufficient     to   demonstrate        that    the    error      was
    harmless.           None of the other factors to which the government
    points     have       probative      value,       and     therefore,        even     taken
    cumulatively,         fail    to   satisfy       the    government’s       burden.       We
    therefore conclude that the government has failed to meet its
    burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the district
    court would have imposed the same sentence under the post-Booker
    advisory       sentencing      regime.           Thus,    Woods      is    entitled      to
    resentencing in accordance with Booker.
    For the reasons set forth above, we vacate Woods’ sentence
    and remand to the district court for resentencing consistent with
    Booker.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    15
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-11058

Citation Numbers: 440 F.3d 255, 2006 WL 325262

Judges: Davis, Smith, Dennis

Filed Date: 1/24/2006

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (20)

United States v. Ernest Nda Akpan Chijioke Victor Okoro, M.... , 407 F.3d 360 ( 2005 )

United States v. Riccardi , 405 F.3d 852 ( 2005 )

United States v. Mozee , 405 F.3d 1082 ( 2005 )

United States v. Garza , 429 F.3d 165 ( 2005 )

Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348 ( 2000 )

United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado , 402 F.3d 294 ( 2005 )

United States v. Leonardo Olivares-Martinez , 767 F.2d 1135 ( 1985 )

United States v. Rodriguez-Gutierrez , 428 F.3d 201 ( 2005 )

United States v. Floyd Bruce , 396 F.3d 697 ( 2005 )

United States v. Steven J. Della Rose , 403 F.3d 891 ( 2005 )

United States v. Virgil D. Carroll , 412 F.3d 787 ( 2005 )

Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 ( 2004 )

United States v. Olano , 113 S. Ct. 1770 ( 1993 )

United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511 ( 2005 )

United States v. James T. Schlifer , 403 F.3d 849 ( 2005 )

United States v. Thomas M. Cunningham , 405 F.3d 497 ( 2005 )

United States v. Francisco Lake , 419 F.3d 111 ( 2005 )

United States v. Robert A. Burke , 425 F.3d 400 ( 2005 )

United States v. Francisco D. Pineiro, Also Known as Frank ... , 410 F.3d 282 ( 2005 )

United States v. Brennick , 405 F.3d 96 ( 2005 )

View All Authorities »