United States v. Ronald Lee Webb , 158 F. App'x 760 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-4076
    ___________
    United States of America,             *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                              * District Court for the Western
    * District of Arkansas.
    Ronald Lee Webb,                      *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                *
    __________
    Submitted: November 14, 2005
    Filed: December 30, 2005
    ___________
    Before ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Ronald Lee Webb (Webb) appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1
    following his plea of guilty to one count of knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully
    possessing stolen United States Postal Mail in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1708
    . We
    affirm.
    Webb’s sentencing occurred after the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v.
    Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
     (2004), but before the Supreme Court’s decision in United
    1
    The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Arkansas.
    States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 
    125 S. Ct. 738
     (2005). At sentencing, Webb argued
    the Guidelines were unconstitutional in light of Blakely, therefore preserving an
    appeal of his sentence under Booker. See United States v. Pirani, 
    406 F.3d 543
    , 550
    (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
    Regarding any alleged Blakely error, when Webb stipulated to the testimony
    of the government’s witnesses, Webb effectively admitted the facts underlying the
    district court’s four-level “number of victims” enhancement for committing an
    offense involving fifty or more victims, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B). Webb
    previously confessed to law enforcement in a videotaped interview he had stolen mail
    from approximately 200 mailboxes. The district court could and did accept the
    stipulated government witnesses’ testimony as true. Consequently, the district court’s
    enhancement of Webb’s sentence did not violate the Sixth Amendment. See United
    States v. McCully, 
    407 F.3d 931
    , 933 (8th Cir. 2005).
    Nonetheless, a Booker error occurred because the district court sentenced
    Webb to 24 months’ imprisonment using the mandatory, pre-Booker Guidelines.
    Thus, we must decide whether to remand for resentencing. While it was error to
    sentence under the mandatory Guidelines regime, the government has shown the error
    was harmless because the district court expressly declared it would impose the same
    sentence under an advisory scheme. See United States v. Thompson, 
    403 F.3d 533
    ,
    536 (8th Cir. 2005). Booker also requires us to review Webb’s sentence for
    unreasonableness, judging it with regard to the factors in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).
    Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765-66; Thompson, 
    403 F.3d at 536
    . Having reviewed the
    record and the section 3553(a) factors, we conclude Webb’s sentence is reasonable.
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Webb’s sentence.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-4076

Citation Numbers: 158 F. App'x 760

Filed Date: 12/30/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023