United States v. Alfred Arnold Ameline

Alfred Ameline appeals his 150 month sentence that was imposed after he pled guilty to knowingly conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. In his initial appellate brief, Ameline challenged his sentence on two grounds. First, Ameline contended that because he objected to the amount of methamphetamine attributed to him in the Presentence Report (“PSR”) the district court erred when it considered the PSR as “prima facie evidence of the facts” and required Ameline to disprove its contents relating to drug quantities. Second, Ame-line contended that the district court’s drug quantity finding was clearly errone *970 ous because it was based on multiple layers of unreliable hearsay evidence.

In post-submission briefing, Ameline argued that the imposition of his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington, - U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) because the facts underlying the calculation of his base offense level and his sentence enhancement were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If Ameline is correct that the Blakely rule applies to the United States…

dissenting.

Blakely does not conclusively require that we hold constitutionally invalid the application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to Ameline. The United States Supreme Court’s prior opinions have upheld the constitutionality of the Guidelines. I agree with Part II.A of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464 , 2004 WL 1543170 (5th Cir. July 12, 2004), analyzing the impact of Blakely and holding that the Guidelines are not affected by it. I also agree with the dissent in United States v. Booker, 375 F.3d 508, 515-21 , 2004 WL 1535858 , at *6-*ll (7th Cir. July 9, 2004) (Easterbrook, J., dissenting). While reasonable jurists may now disagree on the long-range impact of the reasoning of Blakely, in the short run we remain bound to apply the Guidelines unless and until the Supreme Court holds otherwise.

Before Blakely, the Supreme Court had held that federal courts are bound by the Guidelines and by their policy statements and commentary. See Stinson v. United *985 States, 508 U.S. 36, 42 , 113 S.Ct. 1913 , 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993) (“The principle that the Guidelines Manual is binding on federal courts applies as well to policy…

376 F.3d 967 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred Arnold AMELINE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-30326. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted November 4, 2003. * Filed July 21, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Brian P. Fay, Angel Law Firm, Bozeman, Montana, for the appellant. Lori Harper Suek, Assistant United States Attorney, Great Falls, Montana, for the appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding. Before: WARDLAW, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. PAEZ, Circuit Judge. 1 Alfred Ameline appeals his 150 month sentence that was imposed after he pled guilty to knowingly conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. In his initial appellate brief, Ameline challenged his sentence on two grounds. First, Ameline contended that because he objected to the amount of methamphetamine attributed to him in the Presentence Report ("PSR") the district court erred when it considered the PSR as "prima facie evidence of the facts" and required Ameline to disprove its contents relating to drug quantities. Second, Ameline contended…