Ex Post Facto, Due Process Arguments Rejected in Pre-Blakely/Pre-Booker Sentencing Case

U.S. v. Rines, 2005 WL 1953505 (8/16/05) - Without much discussion, the 10th rejected the notion that due process or ex post facto principles prohibited increasing a sentence above the maximum allowed by the defendant's admissions or the jury verdict for offenses committed before Blakely and/or Booker was decided [on the grounds that the enhancements were unforeseeable at the time of the offense]. The S.Ct. in Booker ordered that the new advisory regime (that allows enhancements based on a judicial finding by a preponderance) be applied to all nonfinal cases. The S.Ct. wouldn't order courts to violate the Constitution, the 10th reasoned. In addition, when the defendant committed the offense he was on notice that he could be sentenced within the guidelines as enhanced by judicial findings, as he was.

The 10th also ruled that a d.ct. does not have to "march through" all the 3553(a) sentencing factors when imposing a sentence. It was enough that the d.ct. looked through the record in its entirety, was familiar with the facts of the case and heard several different arguments. "We will not make the useless gesture of remanding for reconsideration when the defendant was aware at sentencing that all relevant factors would be considered by the d.ct."