Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01383/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01383-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodolfo Tablas-Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1383

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Rodolfo Tablas-Rodriguez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2005

Filed: December 20, 2005 

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rodolfo Tablas-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to

distribute more than five hundred grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) & 846. He appeals the sentence imposed

by the district court1

 as unreasonable. We affirm. 

In April 2003, Tablas-Rodriguez was arrested with two others for distributing

methamphetamine from Minneapolis to Des Moines, Iowa. The district court adopted

Appellate Case: 05-1383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2005 Entry ID: 1987747
-2-

the Presentence Investigation Report, which indicated the correct United States

Sentencing Guideline range was 108 to 135 months of imprisonment, after taking into

account a two-level decrease under Section 2D1.1(b)(7) and a three-level decrease for

acceptance of responsibility. Additionally, the government moved for a downward

departure on the basis of substantial assistance. 

At sentencing, the district court acknowledged the advisory nature of the

Guidelines and correctly used the range as a starting point. See United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2005) ("Thus, the sentencing court must first

determine the appropriate guidelines sentencing range, since that range does remain

an important factor to be considered in the imposition of a sentence."). The court

noted the applicable range was "fully consistent with the purposes of sentencing in

this instance." The government recommended a 15% percent downward departure

for substantial assistance and Tablas-Rodriguez requested a 50% departure. The

district court sentenced him to seventy-five months, or a departure of roughly 30%.

Because Tablas-Rodriguez was sentenced under an advisory Guidelines

system, we review his sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Winters, 416

F.3d 856, 859 (8th Cir. 2005). This analysis begins by determining, as the district

court did, the proper range under the Guidelines. Haack, 403 F.3d at 1002-03.

Neither party disputes the district court calculated the correct Guideline range. 

The sentence imposed is not unreasonable. The district court started its

analysis on the low end of the Guidelines after considering the "purposes of

sentencing." It also noted it found no other basis for "making any departures from

that [G]uideline range other than the motion for reduction for substantial assistance."

Because there is "nothing in the record to suggest that this sentence is unreasonable,"

United States v. Varnedore, 422 F.3d 1143, 1145 (8th Cir. 2005), we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2005 Entry ID: 1987747