United States v. Chadwick Wayne Acison
Docket: 04-2856
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; August 10, 2005; Federal Appellate Court
Chadwick Wayne Acison pled guilty to manufacturing over 50 grams of methamphetamine, violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and was sentenced to 100 months in prison. Acison’s plea agreement stipulated his responsibility for 229.03 grams of methamphetamine, leading to a base offense level of 28 and a total offense level of 25 after adjustments for acceptance of responsibility. The probation office assigned a criminal history category of V, resulting in a guideline sentencing range of 100 to 125 months. The district court sentenced Acison at the bottom of this range but indicated that if the guidelines were found unconstitutional, Acison would receive a 60-month sentence. The government contended that Acison waived his right to appeal based on the plea agreement terms, which stated his sentence would adhere to the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the court referenced a precedent indicating that similar agreements do not waive the right to appeal a Booker claim. In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory sentencing guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment, rendering them effectively advisory. Although the government argued that Acison's stipulations negated any error, his sentencing under mandatory guidelines constituted at least a nonconstitutional error under the current legal framework. The government also asserted that Acison failed to preserve a Booker objection for appeal and suggested applying a plain-error standard. However, the district court proactively raised the constitutionality of the guidelines during sentencing, informing Acison of the potential for a lesser sentence should the guidelines be deemed unconstitutional and allowing for an appeal on that issue. The appellate court decided to vacate Acison's sentence and remand the case for resentencing under the advisory guidelines established in Booker. The district court acknowledged that it was aware of the issue Acison now appeals and had the opportunity to consider it, suggesting that Acison was not required to raise the issue to preserve it, supported by case law. However, regardless of this requirement, Acison is entitled to resentencing under the plain-error standard. The court's indication that it would have imposed a 60-month sentence instead of 100 months if the guidelines were unconstitutional demonstrates a reasonable probability of a more favorable sentence. This aligns with precedents which state that such an error undermines the fairness of judicial proceedings. Although the district court had specified a potential term of imprisonment, it did not consider the advisory nature of the guidelines as clarified by the Booker decision, which mandates that sentences be reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing.