Narrative Opinion Summary
The case concerns an appeal by a defendant convicted and sentenced for illegal reentry into the United States, challenging the sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds and under the Supreme Court's United States v. Booker decision. The defendant was initially sentenced based on a Presentence Report that increased his offense level due to a prior conviction, applying mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. He argued this violated his Sixth Amendment rights, as any fact increasing his sentence should be jury-determined, and challenged the applicability of Almendarez-Torres v. United States. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing under advisory Guidelines post-Booker. The court found the defendant preserved his nonconstitutional Booker error claim through objections referencing Apprendi and Blakely, necessitating a review of harmlessness. The Government failed to prove the error was harmless, leading to a full vacatur of the sentence. The decision underscores the procedural implications of Booker and the distinction between constitutional and nonconstitutional sentencing errors.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Almendarez-Torres v. United Statessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejected Beng's argument that Almendarez-Torres was effectively overruled and upheld its application regarding prior convictions.
Reasoning: Beng contended that these recommendations infringed upon his Sixth Amendment rights, asserting that any fact increasing his sentence must be determined by a jury.
Mandatory Versus Advisory Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Beng's sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing under advisory guidelines due to the district court's error in using mandatory Guidelines.
Reasoning: The district court mistakenly sentenced Beng using mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, an error acknowledged in light of preserved nonconstitutional Booker error claims.
Preservation of Sentencing Error Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that a defendant preserves a challenge to the mandatory application of the Guidelines by raising objections based on Apprendi or Blakely.
Reasoning: Sister circuits, including the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh, have uniformly established that a defendant preserves a challenge to the mandatory application of the Guidelines by raising objections based on Apprendi or Blakely.
Sixth Amendment and Sentencing Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case involves the application of the Sixth Amendment in the context of federal Sentencing Guidelines, particularly following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker.
Reasoning: Beng was convicted in July 2004 and sentenced in October 2004, prior to the Booker decision, which held that the Sixth Amendment applies to federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Standard of Review for Sentencing Errorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The standard for reviewing preserved constitutional errors requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict, while unpreserved errors are reviewed for plain error.
Reasoning: Defendants must preserve their claims by raising them in the district court, where errors are typically reviewed for harmlessness.