Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03628/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03628-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adan Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3628

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Adan Lopez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 23, 2004

Filed: June 17, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Adan Lopez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute fifty grams

or more of methamphetamine. Lopez did not object to a statement in the presentence

report (PSR) circulated to the parties and the court nearly two months before

sentencing that as of that date, he was not eligible for safety valve relief under

U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 because he had not disclosed to the government all information he

knew about the offense. See id. § 5C1.2(a)(5). Seven days before the sentencing

hearing, the Government conducted the safety valve interview. Before the sentencing

hearing, Lopez’s attorney discussed the interview with the prosecutor and the

prosecutor stated Lopez had not satisfied the disclosure requirement. Sent. Trans. at

Appellate Case: 03-3628 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2005 Entry ID: 1917070 
*

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

-2-

10. During the hearing, after Lopez stated there was no reason the district court*

should not proceed to sentencing, the court declined to reduce Lopez’s offense level

by two under the safety valve and sentenced Lopez to 87 months in prison. After the

district court announced Lopez’s sentence, Lopez objected for the first time to the

denial of a safety valve reduction. The district court refused to entertain the objection

because it was untimely. Lopez appealed and we held the district court did not abuse

its discretion in refusing to entertain Lopez’s untimely objection. United States v.

Lopez, 2004 WL 1418751 (8th Cir. June 25, 2004). On reconsideration, we reject

Lopez’s unfounded contention that the safety valve reduction was never at issue until

he was sentenced. Lopez could have raised the issue at the sentencing hearing before

the court proceeded to sentence him, but did not. We thus reaffirm the district court’s

refusal to entertain the issue. 

Lopez also contends for the first time on rehearing that his sentence violates

his Sixth Amendment rights because the sentence was based on a drug quantity not

found by a jury. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005)(any fact

other than earlier conviction necessary to support a sentence exceeding the facts

established by a guilty plea or jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or

found by a jury). The district court sentenced Lopez based on a drug quantity of

614.73 grams of methamphetamine. The PSR recommended holding Lopez

responsible for this amount and contained detailed factual allegations specifying drug

transactions and individual quantities totaling 614.73 grams. Because Lopez failed

to object to the PSR’s drug quantity recommendation and related factual allegations,

they are deemed admitted by Lopez for purposes of Booker. United States v.

McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 2005). Thus, Lopez’s Sixth Amendment rights

were not violated. 

Appellate Case: 03-3628 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2005 Entry ID: 1917070 
-3-

Although the district court mistakenly applied the guidelines as mandatory

rather than advisory, see Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764-66, Lopez raised no objection in

the district court, so we review only for plain error. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d

543, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). To establish plain error, Lopez must “show

a ‘reasonable probability,’ based on the appellate record as a whole, that but for the

error he would have received a more favorable sentence.” Id. at 552. The district

court sentenced Lopez at the bottom of the guidelines range, but that fact alone is

insufficient to show the court would have sentenced Lopez more leniently under an

advisory guidelines scheme, and we see nothing else in the record indicating the court

deemed Lopez’s sentence too harsh. Id. at 553. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for rehearing and reaffirm Lopez’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3628 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/17/2005 Entry ID: 1917070