Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02423/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02423-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Trinidad Hernandez-Olea
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2423 

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Jose Trinidad Hernandez-Olea, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 12, 2005

 Filed: May 18, 2005 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Hernandez-Olea appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

claiming error stemming from an increase in his sentence due to judicial factfinding

regarding the amount of methamphetamine attributable to Hernandez-Olea and

possession of a firearm. Hernandez-Olea did not object to judicial factfinding at trial

and his claim is therefore reviewed only for “plain error.” United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725 (1993). To show plain error, Hernandez-Olea must “show a ‘reasonable

Appellate Case: 04-2423 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Entry ID: 1904014
-2-

probability,’ based on the appellate record as a whole, that but for the error he would

have received a more favorable sentence.” United States v. Pirani, No 03-2871, slip

op. at 11 (8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2005) (en banc). The record before the court shows that

Hernandez-Olea has not met his burden. There is nothing to suggest that the district

court would impose a lesser sentence on remand, and “‘where the effect of the error

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.’” Id. at 13

(quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th Cir. 2005)). Thus,

Hernandez-Olea has failed to meet his burden under plain error review.

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2423 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Entry ID: 1904014