United States of America v. Oren Ray Hall

*The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0279n.06
Filed: April 13, 2005
No. 04-5336
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
OREN RAY HALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Before: BOGGS, Chief, Judge; COOK, and BRIGHT*, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Oren Ray Hall appeals the sentence he received after pleading guilty to
distributing alprazolam, a Schedule IV controlled substance, arguing that the district court violated
his Sixth Amendment rights under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Though Hall
admitted to distributing only 1800 tablets, the district court held him accountable for 19,170
alprazolam and 2,235 diazepam tablets. Hall’s factual admissions warranted a sentencing range of
4 to 10 months of imprisonment. But the relevant-conduct finding increased the applicable range
to 15 to 21 months, with the district court sentencing Hall to 21 months.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-5336
United States v.Hall
- 2 -
Because Hall raises his Sixth Amendment argument for the first time on appeal, we review
for plain error. Under this Circuit’s Barnett regime, we acknowledge the Booker-driven sentencing
error and presume the error prejudiced Hall. See United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516 (6th Cir.
2005). Nonetheless, we believe the district court’s explication of its sentencing choice rebuts the
presumption. In sentencing Hall to the maximum sentence within the range, the district court
explained:
Mr. Hall, what is going to drive the [c]ourt in this sentence is your criminal
background. . . . The [c]ourt is going to sentence you to the high end of the
guideline range. . . . The [c]ourt imposes this sentence to protect society from
future misdeeds by Mr. Hall and also to reflect the seriousness of the offense.
On this record, we cannot conclude that the district court’s Booker violation affected Hall’s
substantial rights. Accordingly, we affirm Hall’s sentence.

-- 2 of 2 --