At page 872 Determining statutory maximums and sentencing guidelines application5 citing cases
- United States v. Carlos Price, 319 F. App'x 447 (8th Cir. 2009).unpublished See 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(1) (setting forth 15-year mandatory minimum prison term); United States v. Williams, 74 F.3d 872, 872 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (application of Guidelines provision not reviewable where defendant faced same senten…
- United States v. Jamie Guitron, 220 F. App'x 439 (8th Cir. 2007).unpublishedSee 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(l)(A)(viii) (setting forth mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for a person convicted of a crime involving 50 grams or more of methamphetamine or 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine); U.S.S.…
- United States v. Jonathan D. Mullens, No. 99-1219 (8th Cir. July 14, 2000).unpublishedAssuming Mr. Pittman’s argument is reviewable--his sentence, even without the obstruction-of-justice enhancement, exceeded the 120-month statutory maximum and thus he faced the same 120-month sentence, win or lose, see United States v. Wil…
- United States v. David Almanza, No. 99-3309 (8th Cir. June 9, 2000).unpublishedSee U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4) (1998); United States v. Williams, 74 F.3d 872, 872 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
- United States v. Eugene Wilson, No. 99-1859 (8th Cir. Oct. 28, 1999).unpublishedSee United States v. Williams, 74 F.3d 872, 872 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
v.
Russell Terry WILLIAMS, Appellant
Russell Terry Williams appeals his sentence. After tendering a guilty plea, he was sentenced to twenty-seven months imprisonment for conspiring to distribute heroin and cocaine. We affirm.
Williams contends that the district court erred in determining that two of his prior convictions were not related within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. If the convictions had been found to be related, Williams would have a criminal history category of V instead of VI.
At sentencing, the district court determined that the two convictions, one for burglary of a liquor store and one for stealing a horse several days after the burglary, were not related. Nevertheless, after imposing the sentence, the district court stated, “[n]ow, that sentence is within the guideline range of — whether you figure the criminal history a 5 or a 6, it’s still within that range.” Sentencing Transcript at 38.
We find that Williams’s sentence is not reviewable. The sentence imposed falls within the guideline range urged by Williams. It is clear from the sentencing transcript that the sentencing judge would have imposed the same sentence regardless of whether Williams’s argument for the lower guideline range prevailed. Thus, any error in calculating the guideline range is deemed harmless because Williams faces the same sentence, win or lose. United States v. Torres-Diaz, 60 F.3d 445, 449 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 432, 133 L.Ed.2d 347 (1995).
Accordingly, Williams’s sentence is affirmed.