United States v. Clarence Stevens , 260 F. App'x 945 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-1283
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Appellee,                *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                            * District Court for the
    * Western District of Missouri.
    Clarence Stevens,                      *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: January 4, 2008
    Filed: January 22, 2008
    ___________
    Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Clarence Stevens (Stevens) appeals the 60-month’s imprisonment the district
    1
    court imposed after this court remanded for resentencing. See United States v.
    Wintermute, 
    443 F.3d 993
     (8th Cir. 2006). Stevens argues (1) the government should
    not have been allowed to present evidence at the resentencing hearing, and (2) his
    sentence violates the Sixth Amendment, because the sentencing enhancements he
    received were based on facts not found by a jury or admitted by him.
    1
    The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri.
    We conclude (1) the law-of-the-case doctrine required the district court to
    follow this court’s mandate to allow the government to present evidence at
    resentencing, giving all parties a full resentencing hearing; and (2) Stevens has not
    shown that the law of the case should not apply here. See United States v. Huber, 
    462 F.3d 945
    , 953 (8th Cir. 2006) (declaring the law of the case requires a trial court to
    follow the decision of the appellate court with respect to all issues addressed by the
    opinion); United States v. Bartsh, 
    69 F.3d 864
    , 866 (8th Cir. 1995) (explaining the law
    of the case prevents relitigation of settled issues and requires courts to adhere to
    decisions made in earlier proceedings to ensure uniformity, protect expectations, and
    promote judicial economy); United States v. Callaway, 
    972 F.2d 904
    , 905 (8th Cir.
    1992) (per curiam) (stating the law of the case should be followed unless a party
    “introduces substantially different evidence, or [the] prior decision is clearly
    erroneous and works manifest injustice”).
    We further conclude Stevens’s sentence does not violate the Sixth Amendment
    because there is no indication the district court viewed the Guidelines as mandatory.
    See United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 233-37, 245, 258-59 (2005) (concluding
    the Sixth Amendment problem resulting from the mandatory nature of the Guidelines
    is remedied by making the Guidelines advisory); United States v. Salter, 
    418 F.3d 860
    ,
    862 (8th Cir. 2005) (ruling, after Booker, the district court may enhance a sentence
    based on judge-found facts if the court views the Guidelines as advisory).
    Steven argues in his brief the “increase in the offense level in the case at bar
    skews the ‘reasonableness’ analysis.” We further review the sentence for
    reasonableness, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, and conclude the
    sentence is not unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, __ U.S. __, 
    128 S. Ct. 586
    ,
    596-97; Rita v. United States, __ U.S. __ 
    127 S. Ct. 2456
    , 2462 (2007); and Booker,
    543 U.S. at 261.
    We affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-