DISCLAIMER:  The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
                        as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.

071993P.pdf   11/24/2008  United States  v.  Russell Henson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  07-1993
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judge, and
   Erickson, District Judge]
Criminal case - Sentencing. While the district court committed a significant procedural error when it treated the applicable guidelines range as presumptively reasonable, the error must be evaluated under a "harmless error" analysis; applying such an analysis, the government has met its burden to show that the procedural error did not substantially influence the outcome of the sentencing proceedings as the district court clearly stated that it would have imposed the same sentence whether or not the court felt constrained by the a presumption of reasonableness; as a result, the sentence is affirmed. Judge Shepherd, dissenting on the ground that, in his opinion, the government did not meet its burden of showing that the significant procedural error was harmless. 071993P.pdf 07/25/2008 United States v. Russell Henson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 07-1993 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Shepherd, Circuit Judge, and Erickson, District Judge]
Criminal case - Sentencing. While the district court erred in treating the Guidelines as presumptively reasonable, the government met its burden of showing the procedural error was harmless and did not substantively effect the sentence imposed in the case; sentence affirmed. Judge Shepherd, dissenting on the issue of whether the government met its burden of showing that the significant procedural error in the case was harmless.