US v Robles: preserved Sixth Amendment error under Booker, through enhancement of a sentence based on judicial finding of drug quantity. But the government wins an affirmance by meeting the very high standard of showing that even this constitutional error was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Why? Because the District Court explicitly said that even if the guidelines were merely advisory it would impose the same sentence. That's that. The Court rejects Robles' argument that the district court may not have fully appreciated its ability to consider a full range of factors in exercising its discretion in an advisory-guidelines scheme.
The interesting thing about the decision, as Professor Berman notes, is its dictum to the effect that a District Court does not need to painstakingly explain the reasons for its discretionary decision to sentence within the advisory guidelines range, post-Booker.
Comments