United States v. Anthony Allen Collier, Also Known as Allen Collier, Also Known as Anthony C. Collier, Also Known as Anthony J. Collier, Also Known as Anthony Ellen Collier, Also Known as Anthony Allan Collier, Also Known as Michael C. Collier, Also Known as James J. Howard, Also Known as James E. Collier

Citations: 413 F.3d 858; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12678Docket: 04-2013

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; June 27, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On May 21, 2003, Anthony Allen Collier pleaded guilty to charges of bank fraud, fraudulent use of identification, and fraudulent use of a social security number, resulting from a scheme involving identity theft. Collier used stolen identities to obtain loans and credit cards, purchasing vehicles and a house, and defaulted on these loans, leading to losses exceeding $100,000 for nine individuals and multiple corporations. At sentencing, the district court established a total offense level of eighteen and a criminal history category of VI, suggesting a guideline range of fifty-seven to seventy-one months. The court declined to adjust Collier's offense level for acceptance of responsibility, finding his testimony aimed at minimizing his involvement.

The district court subsequently departed upward by four levels, citing Collier's extensive criminal history and the significant damage caused to victims as justification. Ultimately, Collier received concurrent sentences of 100 months on three counts and 60 months on two counts, along with restitution of $150,896.57. 

On appeal, Collier contested the sufficiency of evidence for the upward departures and their reasonableness. The appellate court upheld the district court's decision, noting that the upward departures were justified by Collier's nineteen convictions, history of violent crimes, and noncompliance with supervised release. The court recognized the severe impact on victims, affirming that the sentencing guidelines did not adequately capture the consequences of identity theft. The appellate review confirmed that the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines was correct and that factual determinations were not clearly erroneous.

Collier's appeal centers on his testimony about relevant conduct and its impact on his sentencing. He contends that his sentence is unconstitutional under Blakely because enhancements were based on judge-tried facts not determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. However, Collier had previously withdrawn objections to the Presentence Report (PSR) and provided extensive testimony regarding the relevant conduct, which the court required to assess his acceptance of responsibility. The court found no Sixth Amendment violation, as Collier admitted to the facts leading to his sentence. Additionally, the court did not err in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility since his testimony appeared aimed at minimizing his involvement rather than fully accepting it. Although the district court incorrectly applied the sentencing guidelines as mandatory, Collier did not raise this issue during sentencing. For a new hearing, he must demonstrate that the error was plain, affected his rights, and undermined judicial integrity. The court found no reasonable probability that he would have received a lighter sentence had the guidelines been considered advisory. Consequently, the court affirmed the original decision.