United States v. Ollson

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
June 22, 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 04-1481
SHANE EDWARD OLLSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. NO. 04-CR-99-D)

Submitted on the briefs: *

Raymond P. Moore, Federal Public Defender, and Janine Yunker, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant - Appellant.

William J. Leone, Acting United States Attorney, and Jerry N. Jones, Assistant
United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff - Appellee.

Before SEYMOUR , HARTZ , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.

HARTZ , Circuit Judge.

*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
 Defendant Shane Edward Ollson was sentenced before the Supreme Court

handed down United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The district court

consequently sentenced him under the mistaken impression that the Sentencing

Guidelines are, in general, mandatory rather than advisory. We hold that the error

was harmless, however, because the record clearly shows that Defendant’s

sentence would have been the same under the post-Booker discretionary-guideline

regime. The government in this case moved to reduce Defendant’s sentence under

United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG), § 5K1.1, for his substantial

assistance in an investigation. Under that provision the district court had

considerable discretion regarding the amount of reduction, if any; and it could

undoubtedly have exercised its discretion to impose a lesser sentence than it did.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a

previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In the plea

agreement Defendant admitted that the firearm in his possession was stolen.

Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion requesting that the district court

declare the Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional. The district court denied the

motion.

Defendant’s base-offense level, 24, was enhanced two levels because the

gun was stolen, see USSG § 2K2.1.(b)(4), and reduced three levels for acceptance

-2-
of responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1.(b). His criminal history category was III.

Defendant’s resulting guidelines range was 57-71 months. The government

moved for a sentence reduction of 20% below the 57-month guidelines minimum

because Defendant provided substantial assistance in the investigation. See

USSG § 5K1.1. The district court granted the motion and sentenced Defendant to

46 months’ imprisonment, slightly less than 20% below the 57-month guidelines

minimum.

In his opening brief on appeal Defendant argued that the Sentencing

Guidelines were unconstitutional in light of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct.

2531 (2004), and further argued that the Sentencing Commission itself is

unconstitutional because “Congress has violated the non-delegation doctrine by

permitting a Judicial Branch agency to exercise inappropriate powers, in violation

of the separation of powers doctrine.” Aplt. Br. at 9. This separation-of-powers

argument was rejected by United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 754-55 (2005);

but Defendant also filed a post-Booker supplemental brief arguing that use of

mandatory guidelines is structural error and that Booker requires resentencing.

We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Defendant admitted to all the facts underlying his sentence. Consequently,

the only Booker error is that the district court sentenced Defendant under what it

thought were mandatory guidelines. See United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403

-3-
F.3d 727, 731-32 (10th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing between constitutional and

nonconstitutional Booker error). Because Defendant properly raised his claim

below, we review for harmless error. United States v. Labastida-Segura, 396

F.3d 1140, 1142-43 (10th Cir. 2005). Although Defendant contends that the error

presented is structural and therefore harmless-error analysis does not apply, this

circuit has rejected that contention. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 734.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a) states that “[a]ny error, defect,

irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be

disregarded.” An error with respect to sentencing does not affect substantial

rights when it did not affect the sentence imposed by the district court.

Labastida-Segura, 396 F.3d at 1142-43.

Defendant points out that the sentencing judge used the guidelines

minimum as the starting point when calculating the departure. He argues that his

circumstances are thus similar to those in Labastida-Segura, in which the judge

imposed the minimum sentence. There we stated:

[T]o say that the district court would have imposed the same sentence
given the new legal landscape (even after consulting the Sentencing
Guidelines in an advisory capacity) places us in the zone of
speculation and conjecture—we simply do not know what the district
court would have done after hearing from the parties.

Labastida-Segura, 396 F.3d at 1143.

-4-
 Defendant’s argument, however, neglects an essential element of his case:

once the government moved for downward departure under § 5K1.1, the district

court exercised its discretion in both granting the motion and in deciding what

degree of departure was appropriate. Section 5K1.1 states that “the court may

depart from the guidelines” on the motion of the government if the defendant

“provided substantial assistance.” It further states that “[t]he appropriate

reduction shall be determined by the court” and provides a list of considerations

relevant to that determination. USSG § 5K1.1(a). Although true that

“[s]ubstantial weight should be given to the government’s evaluation of the extent

of the defendant’s assistance,” see USSG § 5K1.1 cmt. n.3., the district court

nonetheless retains discretion to depart to the degree it finds appropriate,

regardless of a specific recommendation by the government. See United States v.

Blackwell, 127 F.3d 947, 958-59 (10th Cir. 1997) (Briscoe, J. concurring and

dissenting) (“The extent of a departure under § 5K1.1 is within the sentencing

court’s sound discretion.”); United States v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150, 1155 (1st

Cir. 1993) (the government’s motion “does not bind a sentencing court to abdicate

its responsibility, stifle its independent judgment, or comply blindly with the

prosecutor’s wishes”).

Thus, unlike the situation in Labastida-Segura, the district court had

undoubted discretion to reduce the sentence below what it imposed. If the court

-5-
thought that Defendant deserved an even lesser sentence, it could have departed

further. Nothing in the record overcomes the presumption that the court was

aware of its discretion. Cf. United States v. Rowen, 73 F.3d 1061, 1063 (10th Cir.

1996) (presuming that sentencing court knew it had discretion to depart

downward). Much closer in point than Labastida-Segura is United States v.

Serrano-Dominguez, 406 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2005), in which we held the error

to be harmless because the district court had set an identical alternative sentence

in the event that the guidelines were overturned. In our view the district court’s

nonconstitutional Booker error was harmless.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

-6-