Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03123/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03123-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Arquimides Ibarra
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-3123

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Jose Arquimides Ibarra,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

Southern District of Iowa.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: February 13, 2007

 Filed: April 5, 2007

________________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

 Jose Arquimides Ibarra appeals the sentence pronounced by the district court1

after his plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more

of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). For the reasons discussed

below, we affirm.

During a traffic stop in September 2004, Ibarra consented to a search of his

Appellate Case: 06-3123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2007 Entry ID: 3295858
-2-

vehicle by the Iowa State Patrol. Officers discovered 30 packages of cocaine

concealed in a cavity accessible through the floor of the vehicle’s passenger

compartment. The total net weight of the cocaine was just under 30 kilograms. Ibarra

posted bond on the resulting state charges and then absconded from Iowa. He was

apprehended in Texas attempting to cross the border into Mexico in November 2005.

An indictment on the instant federal charge had been obtained in the interim.

Ibarra pled guilty to the federal charge pursuant to a written plea agreement.

He had no previous criminal history. The parties stipulated to a drug quantity between

15 and 50 kilograms of cocaine, resulting in a base offense level of 34 under the

United States Sentencing Guidelines. Although subject to a ten-year mandatory

minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), Ibarra qualified for safety-valve

relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. He received the associated

two-level safety-valve reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b), as well as a three-level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility. However, Ibarra also received a two-level

enhancement for obstruction of justice because he fled after posting bond. His

resulting advisory guidelines range was 108 to 135 months.

Ibarra suggested several justifications to the district court for a downward

variance from the guidelines based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the

fact he had attained age 55 with no previous criminal history and that he had strong

family and community support. The district court began its discussion of the

§ 3553(a) factors as follows:

It is certainly appropriate that I consider Mr. Ibarra’s past and his

activities, and the record that I have indicates that it was of being a fine

citizen, a contributor to his community . . . [but] the court must also

consider the nature of the offense. . . . [D]istribution of cocaine,

particularly significant amounts of cocaine, is a very serious offense and

an extreme problem to society.

The district court next found that protecting the public from further crimes of

Appellate Case: 06-3123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2007 Entry ID: 3295858
-3-

the defendant was not a very significant factor in this case. It then discussed the

guidelines range as a factor:

The court does consider the guidelines sentencing range. While

it is not mandatory, it is a very useful sentencing tool based upon

extensive study and refinement. The court does look to the guideline

calculation as an important, though not singularly controlling, factor to

be considered, and the court recognizes that in this circuit that the

guideline range is presumed to be reasonable in the absence of specific

ability to characterize why this case would be different and, therefore,

the guideline range would be unreasonable.

After emphasizing that the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities

among defendants with similar records who are found guilty of similar conduct is

“extremely important,” the district court concluded:

It seems to me that, under the circumstances of this case, what

really drives this case is the seriousness of the offense, the amount of

cocaine involved, the absence of any criminal record in the past, and all

of those things are specifically addressed in the guideline calculation,

particularly with the application of the safety valve.

I conclude that the guideline sentencing system adequately

addresses the circumstances of this case and that the sentencing guideline

range is a reasonable range.

The district court then pronounced a sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment,

the lower end of the guidelines range. Ibarra now appeals his sentence, arguing that

Appellate Case: 06-3123 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2007 Entry ID: 3295858
2

Ibarra also argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred as a

matter of law in stating that the advisory guidelines range was presumptively

reasonable. He acknowledges our circuit’s precedent that the advisory guidelines

range is presumptively reasonable, see, e.g., United States v. Likens, 464 F.3d 823,

825 (8th Cir. 2006), but asks us to reconsider based on the Supreme Court’s grant of

certiorari in United States v. Rita, 177 Fed. Appx. 357 (4th Cir.) (unpub. per curiam),

cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 551 (2006) (granting certiorari on the question,

“[I]s it consistent with United States v. Booker. . . to accord a presumption of

reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentences?”) and in our own United States v.

Claiborne, 439 F.3d 479, 481 (8th Cir.), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 551

(2006). Of course, a panel of this Court is bound by the decisions of prior panels

unless (and until) the court en banc, or the Supreme Court, reaches a different result.

See Patterson v. Tenet Healthcare, Inc., 113 F.3d 832, 838 (8th Cir. 1997). Therefore,

we reject Ibarra’s argument.

-4-

the district court gave too much weight to the advisory guidelines range at the expense

of the other § 3553(a) sentencing factors.2

“When there is no dispute on appeal about the applicable guideline range, we

examine whether the sentence imposed is ‘reasonable’ in light of the factors

articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),” reviewing the district court’s decision for abuse

of discretion. United States v. Likens, 464 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 2006). “A

sentencing court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider a relevant factor that should

have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant

factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment

in weighing those factors.” United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th

Cir. 2005).

After reviewing the record in the instant case, we find that the district court did

not abuse its discretion in imposing Ibarra’s sentence. Contrary to Ibarra’s assertion

that the district court undervalued the non-guidelines § 3553(a) factors, the district

court found that “what really drives this case is the seriousness of the offense, the

amount of cocaine involved, [and] the absence of any criminal record in the past.”

Appellate Case: 06-3123 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/05/2007 Entry ID: 3295858
-5-

The district court carefully considered Ibarra’s evidence regarding his history and

characteristics, see § 3553(a)(1), and agreed with Ibarra that there was little risk to the

public from further crimes of the defendant, see § 3553(a)(2)(C). Nevertheless, the

district court found that, in light of the safety-valve relief included in the advisory

guidelines calculation and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, see

§ 3553(a)(6), “the sentencing guideline range is a reasonable range.” On this record,

we hold that the district court did not clearly err by placing too much weight on the

advisory guidelines range.

In summary, the record does not support Ibarra’s contentions that the district

court abused its discretion in arriving at his sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the

sentence imposed by the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3123 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/05/2007 Entry ID: 3295858