Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cr-01462/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cr-01462-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rene Soto
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Rene Soto, 

Defendant. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 03-1462 TUC DCB

ORDER

The Court calls for briefing of the issues on remand pursuant to the directives of this

Order.

On May 25, 2004, the Defendant was found guilty by a jury of violating 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2), illegal reentry after deportation for a felony. A Presentence Report was

completed and reviewed by counsel. After a full opportunity to make objections to the

Presentence Report and to brief all sentencing issues, a sentencing hearing was held, and the

Court made specific finds regarding the applicable Guideline range for sentencing in this

case. On August 10, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced within this range to 51 months

imprisonment, 36 months supervised release, and a $100.00 special assessment. The

Judgment of conviction was entered on August 10, 2004. 

On August 11, 2004, Defendant appealed his sentence. On August 13, 2004, he filed

an Amended Notice of Appeal. On October 17, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

issued a Memorandum decision and entered a Mandate on October 14, 2005, remanding the

case for the limited purpose of considering whether or not to re-sentence the Defendant, in

light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (1005), United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d

Case 4:03-cr-01462-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The plain error standard of review applies where error is un-preserved, as compared to the

analysis when a defendant preserves his Sixth Amendment claim. Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1078 n.1.

2

1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), and to see also: United States v. Moreno-Hernandez, 2005

WL 1560269 (9th Cir. July 5, 2005). (Memorandum at 2.)

In Booker, the Supreme Court struck down the sentencing scheme created by the

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 because the Act violated the Sixth Amendment to the

Constitution by mandating the imposition of sentences predicated on facts not found by the

jury or admitted by the defendant. To remedy the constitutional infirmity, the Court severed

the mandatory portions of the Act, rendering the Sentencing Guidelines advisory.

The Ninth Circuit requires a limited remand in all pending direct criminal appeals

where the case on appeal involves an un-preserved1 Booker error, Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1084-

85, "whether constitutional or not, Moreno-Hernandez, 2005 WL at 9. Constitutional error

occurred if the court sentenced a defendant based on facts not found by a jury or not

admitted by the defendant. Even if there was no constitutional error, there was procedural

error under the pre-Booker mandatory sentencing scheme. United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d

103, 114-115 (2nd Cir. 2005). Either error requires remand to the district court to determine

whether or not re-sentencing is warranted. Id.; see also Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1080-81. 

If the district court finds that the defendant's sentence would have been materially

different had it known that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, the defendant must be

re-sentenced. Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1084-85. If not, the original sentence stands, subject to

appeal for reasonableness. Id. at 1079.

On remand, this Court must still consult the Sentencing Guidelines to determine the

applicable guideline range. This Court has already calculated the applicable guideline range

for the Defendant's sentence. Nothing in the Ninth Circuit's remand Order calls into question

the guideline calculation made in this case, but on remand it is advisory.

Case 4:03-cr-01462-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Section 3553(a), subsections (3)(4) and (5) cover factors that are addressed during the

calculation of the guideline sentencing range for a defendant. 

3

The sentencing factors that must considered on remand are those set out in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). Pre-Booker, these factors had uncertain import because 3553(b)(1) mandated that

judges select a sentence within an applicable guideline range unless the statutory standard

for a departure was met. United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 111 (2nd Cir. 2005). "Now,

with the mandatory duty to apply the Guidelines excised, the duty imposed by section

3553(a) to 'consider' numerous factors acquires renewed significance." Id.

The pertinent factors in Section 3553(a) are as follows:

(a)--The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than

necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this

subsection. The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed,

shall consider–

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and

characteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed–

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the

law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most

effective manner;

(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with

similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and 

(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a).2

 On remand, the parties may address these factors. 

The Ninth Circuit cautions that not every defendant will want to pursue resentencing upon remand and directs this Court to provide an opportunity for a defendant with

a pending appeal to opt-out of resenting by promptly giving such notice. Ameline at 1084.

Case 4:03-cr-01462-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 11/09/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

In the event the Defendant gives notice to this Court that [he or she] does not seek resentencing, this matter will be disposed of accordingly and returned to the Ninth Circuit.

In the event, the Defendant does not opt-out, the parties shall provide their views

regarding section 3553(a) factors for re-sentencing in writing. Id. at 1085. A hearing

without Defendant's presence may or may not by held at the Court's discretion. Crosby, 397

F.3d at 120. If the Court determines that the sentence imposed would not have differed

materially had it been aware that the Guidelines were advisory, the Court will issue an Order

of explanation. Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1085. The Defendant need only appear before the

Court in the event of re-sentencing. Crosby, 397 F.3d at 120.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant has 10 days from the filing date of this Order

or until November 22, 2005, to file a notice with this Court that he opts-out of re-sentencing.

This matter shall be returned, forthwith, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for review.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the Defendant does not opt-out of

re-sentencing, the Defendant's re-sentencing brief shall be filed with the Court within 20

days from the filing date of this Order or by November 28, 2005. The Government shall

have 10 days to file a Response. The Court will not consider any arguments pertaining to

the applicable Guideline range calculation because that determination has been fully briefed,

argued, and determined in this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that subsequent to receiving the parties briefs, the

Court shall issue an Order explaining its decision regarding re-sentencing or at its discretion,

the Court may set this matter for hearing. Defendant shall not appear at any hearing, unless

it is determined that he shall be re-sentenced.

DATED this 3rd day of November, 2005.

Case 4:03-cr-01462-DCB-JR Document 54 Filed 11/09/05 Page 4 of 4