Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02447/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02447-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Carlos Suarez-Avalos
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. 04-2447

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Juan Carlos Suarez-Avalos, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 21, 2006

Filed: August 8, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Carlos Suarez-Avalos (Suarez) appeals the 50-month prison sentence the

district court1

 imposed upon his plea of guilty to illegal reentry into the United States

after he had previously been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On appeal,

counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967).

Appellate Case: 04-2447 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2006 Entry ID: 2075713
2

Counsel is reminded that his duty to represent the defendant does not end until

he has fulfilled his obligation to "promptly advise the defendant of the procedures for

filing a petition for a writ of certiorari pro se" in accordance with the Amendment to

Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964.

-2-

The district court’s calculation of Suarez’s Guidelines sentencing range

included two criminal-history points assessed because Suarez was on parole when he

committed the instant offense. Suarez argues the assessment of these points violated

his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights because the fact he was on parole was not

charged in his indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Suarez’s argument is without merit. First, this circuit has rejected the argument

that sentencing factors must be charged in a criminal indictment. See United States

v. Thomas, 398 F.3d 1058, 1063 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentencing factor does not need to

be pled in indictment or put before jury). Second, the criminal-history points were

assessed based on the admission of Suarez’s attorney that Suarez was on parole. See

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303-04 (2004) (sentence may be imposed by

judge if it is based solely on facts “admitted by the defendant”); United States v.

McCully, 407 F.3d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 2005) (Sixth Amendment rights are not violated

when sentence is enhanced based on admission of facts supporting enhancement). 

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.2

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2447 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2006 Entry ID: 2075713