United States v. Kevin Jay Bruce

142 F. App'x 267
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 13, 2005
Docket04-3635
StatusUnpublished

This text of 142 F. App'x 267 (United States v. Kevin Jay Bruce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Kevin Jay Bruce, 142 F. App'x 267 (8th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Bruce pleaded guilty to escape. See 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). His sentencing hearing occurred after the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), but before the Court announced in United States v. Booker, - U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), that the federal sentencing guidelines were effectively advisory in all cases. At sentencing, when Bruce challenged the constitutionality of the Guidelines under Blakely, the district court 1 stated: “I have taken a position as to the guidelines that they are neither constitutional nor unconstitutional, that if they are eventually found to be constitutional, I’m going to sentence today on the grounds of those guidelines, and if they’re found to be unconstitutional, I will have been sentencing on the ground that the guidelines were unconstitutional, but I was using the guidelines as a guide only, not relying on them as such.” (S. Tr. 6). The court then sentenced Bruce to 37 months, the bottom of the applicable guidelines sentencing range. Bruce now challenges the sentence.

We conclude that any error in applying the mandatory guidelines for one of the two alternative sentences is harmless, as the district court clearly indicated that it would impose the same sentence under an advisory system. See United States v. Thompson, 408 F.3d 994, 996-97 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The sentence also is not unreasonable with regard to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Braun Nathan Thompson
408 F.3d 994 (Eighth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 F. App'x 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kevin-jay-bruce-ca8-2005.