Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01131/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01131-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramiro Garcia-Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1131

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Ramiro Garcia-Ramirez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: November 24, 2004

Filed: May 24, 2005

___________

Before BYE, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ramiro Garcia-Ramirez appeals the district court’s1

 entry of judgment and

imposition of sentence after a jury found him guilty of illegally reentering the United

States following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). GarciaRamirez’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the evidence introduced at trial

was sufficient to support the conviction. Garcia-Ramirez has filed a pro se

supplemental brief, in which he argues that the 16-level increase to his base offense

Appellate Case: 04-1131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906258
-2-

level, pursuant to USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), violated his Sixth Amendment rights

based on the reasoning of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).

The evidence introduced at trial was more than adequate to support GarciaRamirez’s illegal-reentry conviction. Garcia-Ramirez stipulated that he was an illegal

alien, and the government presented abundant evidence from which a jury reasonably

could have concluded that Garcia-Ramirez had been deported on numerous occasions,

and had been found in Nebraska without having obtained permission to reenter the

United States. See United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3d 611, 619 n.15 (8th

Cir. 2001) (§ 1326 requires that government prove defendant is alien, defendant was

previously deported, and defendant has reentered United States without permission);

United States v. Stroh, 176 F.3d 439, 440 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review).

Garcia-Ramirez’s Sixth Amendment challenge to the 16-level increase fails,

because the enhancement was based solely on the fact of his prior conviction for drug

trafficking. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005) (holding that

any fact “other than a prior conviction” which enhances a penalty beyond the

maximum authorized by the conviction must be proven to a jury or admitted by the

defendant). In light of Booker, however, the district court did err by applying

mandatory sentencing guidelines, rather than advisory guidelines, to determine the

appropriate term of imprisonment. 

Reviewing the Booker claim for plain error, we conclude that Garcia-Ramirez’s

substantial rights were not affected by the court’s erroneous application of mandatory

sentencing guidelines, because the record as a whole does not establish a “reasonable

probability” that he would have received a more favorable sentence had the court

considered the guidelines as advisory. See United States v. Pirani, No. 03-2871, slip

op. at 11 (8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2005) (en banc). The district court sentenced at the low

end of the range, but a sentence at the bottom of the applicable guideline range is

insufficient, without more, to demonstrate a “reasonable probability” of a more

Appellate Case: 04-1131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906258
-3-

favorable sentence under the advisory system. Id. at 12. The district court said it was

inclined to sentence “at or near the low end of the guideline range” because that

sentence represented a “substantial amount of time . . . for the offense under these

circumstances,” (Tr. at 113-14), but the court also remarked that “it’s questionable in

this case whether any length of prison term is sufficient to deter this particular

defendant from committing this offense again.” (Tr. at 116). Garcia-Ramirez has a

serious criminal history, including two prior convictions for felony drug offenses, two

prior convictions for property offenses, and three prior convictions for illegal reentry,

including a 1999 conviction for which he was under supervised release at the time of

the instant offense. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the record as a whole

does not establish a reasonable probability of a more favorable sentence under the

advisory guideline regime of Booker.

Upon our independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988),

we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw on the condition that counsel complies with Part V of this court’s

Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1131 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906258