Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02076/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02076-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jaime Guitron
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. 06-2076

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Jaime Guitron, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 28, 2007

Filed: April 2, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jaime Guitron challenges the 120-month prison sentence imposed by the district

court1

 upon his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine mixture, and less than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. For reversal, Guitron argues that the district court erred in

finding that he had committed the instant offense within two years of his release from

Appellate Case: 06-2076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294548
-2-

prison on a prior sentence, which resulted in the assessment of two criminal history

points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e) and a Category III criminal history. We affirm.

Even if Guitron were to prevail, he would face the same sentence, because 120

months, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence that he received, is the lowest

sentence he could have received in these circumstances. See 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) (setting forth mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for a

person convicted of a crime involving 50 grams or more of methamphetamine or 500

grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c)

(stating that a sentence may be imposed anywhere within the Guidelines sentencing

range provided that the sentence is not less than the required statutory minimum

sentence); United States v. Williams, 74 F.3d 872, 872 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)

(sentence was not reviewable where it fell within Guidelines range urged by

defendant; defendant faced same sentence, win or lose). With respect to his criminal

history score, Guitron stipulated that his codefendant’s April 2004 drug transaction

was a reasonably foreseeable act in the charged conspiracy, for which Guitron should

be held accountable under the Guidelines. This forecloses his argument that he did

not commit the instant offense within two years of his August 5, 2002, release from

incarceration. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1(e) & comment. (n.5) (add two points if

defendant committed any part of “instant offense” within two years of incarceration

under prior sentence; “instant offense” includes “any relevant conduct”);

1B1.3(a)(1)(B) & comment. (n.2) (“relevant conduct” for which defendant is held

accountable includes reasonably foreseeable conduct of others in furtherance of

conspiracy); United States v. Cook, 447 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 2006) (defendant

who voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge it on appeal;

where defendant agreed to be held accountable for prior conviction, he could not

attack sentence based on that conviction).

Accordingly, we affirm.

_________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294548