United States v. Anthony M. Adams , 154 F. App'x 562 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-3727
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Southern District of Iowa.
    Anthony M. Adams,                       *
    *        [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 17, 2005
    Filed: November 23, 2005
    ___________
    Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Anthony Adams appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
    pleaded guilty to violating 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) by distributing crack
    cocaine and heroin and possessing heroin and cocaine with intent to distribute. For
    reversal, Mr. Adams argues that the district court violated Blakely v. Washington,
    
    542 U.S. 296
     (2004), by calculating his base offense level using drug quantities from
    uncharged and unadmitted conduct and by applying the career-offender Guideline,
    which required a factual finding on the nature of his prior convictions. Mr. Adams
    1
    The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
    Southern District of Iowa.
    also argues the evidence does not support the drug quantities necessary for a base
    offense level of 34.
    While Mr. Adams’s Blakely argument is valid with respect to the drug
    quantities, see United States v. Engler, 
    422 F.3d 692
    , 696 (8th Cir. 2005) (court's use,
    in context of mandatory Guidelines system, of drug quantities not found by jury or
    admitted by defendant was error under United States v. Booker, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    (2005)), the error was harmless. The district court arrived at the same offense
    level--34--for the alternative reason that Mr. Adams had the necessary prior
    convictions to be a career offender, a conclusion the court could properly reach
    without implicating the Sixth Amendment. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) (offense levels
    for career offenders); United States v. Marcussen, 
    403 F.3d 982
    , 984 (8th Cir. 2005)
    (holding that district court, not jury, determines whether prior convictions subject
    defendant to sentencing as career offender), cert. denied, 
    74 U.S.L.W. 3230
     (U.S.
    Oct. 11, 2005 (No. 05-6173)).
    The error in treating the Guidelines as mandatory was harmless as well. The
    district court sentenced Mr. Adams at neither the top nor the bottom of the calculated
    Guidelines range and did not indicate it would have imposed a more favorable
    sentence under advisory Guidelines. See United States v. Perez-Ramirez, 
    415 F.3d 876
    , 878 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding error harmless where district court "left unused
    some of its discretion to sentence [defendant] to a more favorable sentence under the
    mandatory, pre-Booker guidelines"). We conclude that the sentence, which the court
    based partly on Mr. Adams’s extensive criminal history, was not unreasonable. See
    United States v. Shannon, 
    414 F.3d 921
    , 924 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence was
    reasonable with regard to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors that district court considered,
    including criminal history).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-