United States v. Mills

143 F. App'x 561
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 16, 2005
Docket03-10931
StatusUnpublished

This text of 143 F. App'x 561 (United States v. Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Mills, 143 F. App'x 561 (5th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM: *

This case, in which we previously affirmed Mills’s sentence following resentencing, United States v. Mills, 97 Fed.Appx. 506 (5th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (unpublished), is again before us on remand from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by its order of January 25, 2005, granted Mills’s petition for writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case to us “for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621.” Mills v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1115, 160 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2005). At our request, the parties have submitted supplemental briefs following the Supreme Court’s January 25, 2005 remand order.

Following a jury trial, Mills in January 2002 was found guilty of conspiring to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute “in excess of five hundred (500) *563 Grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine” in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). In April 2002, Mills was sentenced to 360 months’ confinement, to be followed by five-years’ supervised release. The PSR calculated the base offense level—computed on the basis of some 612 Kilograms of methamphetamine—as 38. U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c)(l). 1 The PSR added six levels under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(5)(C) because the offense created a substantial risk of harm to the life of á minor. This produced a total base offense level of 43 (actually 44, but under note 2 to the U.S.S.G. Sentencing Table, any base offense level over 43 is considered as being 43). The PSR calculated that Mills had three criminal history points, producing a criminal history category of II. This produced a guideline sentencing range of life imprisonment. Mills made various objections to the PSR, including objections related to drug quantity, criminal history category and the six level enhancement under section 2Dl.l(b)(5)(C). At the April 2002 sentencing hearing the district court reduced Mills’s criminal history category to I, finding that category II over-represented the seriousness of his criminal history. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. The district court also, applying Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996), because the case “brings in an element which was not thoroughly considered by the Sentencing Commission,” departed downward, reducing the base offense level from 43 to 41, but rejected Mills’s request that the departure be greater than that. The result was a guideline sentencing range of 324 to 405 months. Before the district court Mills raised no Booker related or Sixth Amendment issue. The district court sentenced Mills to 360 months’ imprisonment.

Mills appealed to this court. He raised no Booker related or Sixth Amendment issue. He did complain, inter alia, that the six level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C) was improper. In our June 16, 2003 opinion we agreed with that contention, though we observed that “ § 2Dl.l(b)(5)(B)’s three level enhancement [methamphetamine manufacture creating a substantial risk of harm to human life other than a life of a minor or incompetent] would have been sustainable under these factual circumstances.” United States v. Simpson [and Mills ], 334 F.3d 453, 459 (5th Cir.2003). We rejected all Mills’s other contentions, and vacated Mills’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. Id.

Mills was resentenced pursuant to our mandate in September 2003. A supplemental PSR was prepared. It again calculated a 38 base offense level determined on quantity; pursuant to our June 2003 opinion, it recommended a three level enhancement under section 2Dl.l(b)(5)(B), instead of a six level enhancement under section 2Dl.l(b)(5)(C); it calculated a criminal history category of II, but noted the district court had previously reduced that to I; and it noted the district court’s previous reduction of two base offense levels under Koon. The supplemental PSR noted that all this produced a net total base offense level of 39, a criminal history category of I, and resulting guideline range of 262 to 327 months. Mills argued against the three level enhancement under section 2Dl.l(b)(5)(B) and also that the quantity *564 was overstated. 2 Mills raised no Booker related or Sixth Amendment issues at his resentencing. The district court, following the supplemental PSR’s calculations, employed a guideline range of 262 to 327 months and sentenced Mills to 290 months’ imprisonment.

Mills again appealed to this court, contending only that there was no specific evidence or information in the PSR sufficient to support the three level enhancement under section 2Dl.l(b)(5)(B). We rejected this contention and affirmed his sentence (as imposed on resentencing) in our May 26, 2004 opinion. Mills raised no Booker related or Sixth Amendment related issue in this court.

Mills, in his August 2004 petition for certiorari, raised for the first time the complaint that his sentence was enhanced under the guidelines on the basis of facts not alleged in the indictment or found by the jury. The government’s response, filed in September 2004, was pro forma, merely asserting that “the petition for a writ of certiorari should be held pending this Court’s decisions in Booker and Fan-fan, and then disposed of as appropriate in light of the decisions in those cases.”

Having reconsidered our May 26, 2004 decision in light of Booker pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instructions, we reinstate our prior judgment affirming Mills’s sentence on his appeal from his resentencing.

There was, as it is now plain, error in sentencing Mills under a mandatory guideline system on the basis of facts (other than one or more prior convictions) not admitted by him or found by the jury. However, we have held that, absent extraordinary circumstances, we will not consider a Booker related or Sixth Amendment claim which was not timely raised in this court. United States v. Taylor, 409 F.3d 675 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Hernandez-Gonzalez, 405 F.3d 260 (5th Cir.2005) (raised for first time in petition for rehearing). See also United States v. Sutherland, 428 F.2d 1152, 1158 (5th Cir.1970); United States v. Ardley, 273 F.3d 991 (11th Cir.2001) (en banc).

There are no extraordinary circumstances here.

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

Related

United States v. Simpson
334 F.3d 453 (Fifth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Mills
97 F. App'x 506 (Fifth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Mares
402 F.3d 511 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Holmes
406 F.3d 337 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Taylor
409 F.3d 675 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
Koon v. United States
518 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court, 1996)
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Mills v. United States
543 U.S. 1107 (Supreme Court, 2005)
United States v. Ben Herbert Sutherland
428 F.2d 1152 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
United States v. Barry Leon Ardley
273 F.3d 991 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Jesus Alberto Hernandez-Gonzalez
405 F.3d 260 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 F. App'x 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mills-ca5-2005.