Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01229/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01229-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ines Herrera Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1229

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Ines Herrera Martinez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 6, 2007

Filed: December 26, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ines Herrera Martinez appeals his 120 month sentence for possession with

intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and

for illegal reentry after deportation. The district court imposed the statutory

mandatory minimum sentence based on the jury finding that he possessed 500 grams

or more of a controlled substance and his prior drug felony conviction. See 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(B). After we affirmed Herrera Martinez's sentence, United States v.

Herrera Martinez, 354 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2004), the Supreme Court granted his

certiorari petition, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case for further

Appellate Case: 03-1229 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385598
-2-

consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Martinez v.

United States, 127 S. Ct. 1125 (2007). 

Appellant alleges that the district court imposed an unconstitutional sentence

by basing it on five kilograms or more of cocaine although the jury found him

responsible for 500 grams or more of cocaine, citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466, 490 (2000) ("[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that

increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be

submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt."). He also argues that

resentencing is warranted because the district court relied on his prior felony drug

conviction in sentencing him when his guilt of that conviction had not been put to his

trial jury.

Appellant's arguments are not well placed. His ten year sentence was the

statutory minimum sentence required for a defendant found responsible for 500 grams

of more. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Had the district court relied on a finding of

five kilograms or more of cocaine, Herrera Martinez would have been subject to a

twenty year mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). In

imposing appellant's 120 month sentence, the district court properly applied 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(B) based on the jury finding of 500 grams or more of cocaine and his

prior felony drug conviction. Appellant's second argument is also without merit. The

Supreme Court held in Almendarez-Torres v. United States that a prior conviction

need not be proved to a jury to be a sentencing factor. 523 U.S. 224, 243 (1998). We

have previously recognized that Almendarez-Torres remains good law without further

action to the contrary by the Court. See United States v. Garcia, 441 F.3d 596, 599

(8th Cir. 2006). 

We have examined appellant's case in light of Booker, but conclude that the

decision has no effect on his sentence. His sentence was governed by the mandatory

minimum sentence established in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), not by the mandatory

Appellate Case: 03-1229 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385598
-3-

sentencing guidelines found unconstitutional in Booker. See, e.g., United States v.

Crawford, 487 F.3d 1101, 1108 (8th Cir. 2007) ("Booker made the United States

Sentencing Guidelines advisory, but had no effect upon statutory schemes."); United

States v. Warford, 439 F.3d 836, 845 (8th Cir. 2006) (recognizing that Booker did not

render mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional); United States v. Rojas-Coria,

401 F.3d 871, 874 n.4 (8th Cir. 2005) (Booker has "no impact on this case, as RojasCoria's sentence was not based upon an application of the United States Sentencing

Guidelines but rather upon the mandatory minimum sentence set forth in 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A)."); United States v. Torres, 409 F.3d 1000, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005)

(defendant sentenced to statutory minimum cannot show prejudice caused by the

application of the mandatory guidelines because he has "already received the most

favorable sentence to which he is entitled by law."). 

Since appellant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the imposition

of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

_______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1229 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385598