Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02326/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02326-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luciano Martinez-Figueroa
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Theodore McMillian died on January 18, 2006. This opinion

is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E.

Judge McMillian concurred in the opinion before his death.

**The HONORABLE RICHARD E. DORR, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2326

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Luciano Martinez-Figueroa, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 30, 2005

Filed: January 23, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN*

 and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

LOKEN, Chief Judge.

After a jury convicted Luciano Martinez-Figueroa of conspiracy to distribute

and possession with the intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, the

district court** sentenced him to 97 months in prison. Martinez-Figueroa appealed his

conviction, raising two evidentiary issues. We affirmed. United States v.

Appellate Case: 03-2326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2006 Entry ID: 2000119
-2-

Martinez-Figueroa, 363 F.3d 679 (8th Cir. 2004). Following the Supreme Court’s

decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), Martinez-Figueroa

petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, raising Sixth Amendment

sentencing issues. The Court granted the petition, vacated our judgment, and

remanded the case for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005). Having reconsidered Martinez-Figueroa’s sentence in light of

Booker, we reinstate our earlier opinion and affirm.

Martinez-Figueroa argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment

rights by increasing his sentence based on the court’s finding of drug quantity and

imposition of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice. Martinez-Figueroa

did not object to these determinations on Sixth Amendment grounds in the district

court, and he did not raise sentencing issues on appeal to this court. Therefore, we

review this contention for plain error. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th

Cir. 2005). Plain error review is governed by the four-part test of United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-36 (1993). Here, the first two Olano factors are satisfied

because the district court committed error when it applied the Guidelines as

mandatory and that error is plain after Booker. However, Martinez-Figueroa fails to

satisfy the third factor because he cannot “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.” Pirani, 406 F.3d at 552. 

Though the district court sentenced Martinez-Figueroa at the bottom of the

then-mandatory guidelines range, this is insufficient, without more, to demonstrate a

reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence

absent Booker error. In announcing Martinez-Figueroa’s sentence, the district court

stated: “I would agree with counsel that certainly the low end is appropriate here. It’s

a harsh result with the two-level enhancement, but it fits the facts.” There is nothing

in the record suggesting that the district court would have imposed a different sentence

had it considered the Guidelines advisory. “[W]here the effect of the [Booker] error

Appellate Case: 03-2326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2006 Entry ID: 2000119
-3-

on the result in the district court is uncertain or indeterminate -- where we would have

to speculate -- the appellant has not met his burden of showing a reasonable

probability that the result would have been different but for the error.” Pirani, 406

F.3d at 553 (quotation and citation omitted). Thus, Martinez-Figueroa’s sentence was

not the product of plain error.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2326 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/23/2006 Entry ID: 2000119