Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02819/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02819-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose G. Diaz-Diaz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2819

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Jose G. Diaz-Diaz, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 11, 2004

Filed: August 19, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BRIGHT, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose G. Diaz-Diaz pled guilty to participation in a conspiracy with intent to

distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine. See 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (making it unlawful “to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or

possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance”),

§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) (setting a mandatory minimum of ten years imprisonment for

distribution of “50 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts

of its isomers or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable

amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers”), and § 846

(“Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this

Appellate Case: 03-2819 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2004 Entry ID: 1801277 
-2-

subchapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense,

the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.”). The district

court sentenced him to 210 months, the bottom of the range based on an offense level

of thirty-seven. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. This included a two-level enhancement for

possession of a firearm, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), a three-level reduction for

acceptance of responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, and a drug-quantity calculation

of at least 907 kilograms of methamphetamine. The district court, with the

government’s support, rejected an upward adjustment based on Diaz-Diaz’s alleged

“manager or supervisor” role in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. The district court

also denied Diaz-Diaz’s motion for a downward departure. Diaz-Diaz had argued for

the departure because he offered to forego procedural protections to which he would

otherwise be entitled prior to his deportation to Mexico upon release from prison.

Diaz-Diaz, having properly objected to the drug quantity calculation and firearms

enhancement and moved for the downward departure during the sentencing

proceedings, now timely raises those issues on appeal.

As the government notes in its brief, the quantity of drugs attributable to DiazDiaz was calculated by the district court, by a preponderance of the evidence. This

quantity exceeded substantially the minimum amount (500 grams of

methamphetamine mixture) necessary to sustain Diaz-Diaz’s guilty plea under the

statutory charge. The district court also found the facts necessary to support the

guidelines enhancement for possession of a firearm.

Because the government presented more-than-adequate evidence to support the

district court’s factual findings about the quantity of drugs attributable to Diaz-Diaz

and the firearm enhancement, we affirm. We also affirm the district court’s decision

not to depart from the guidelines for Diaz-Diaz’s willingness to forego procedural

protections.

AFFIRMED

Appellate Case: 03-2819 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2004 Entry ID: 1801277 
-3-

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part,

I concur in the determination that the district court did not err in refusing to

downwardly depart from the guidelines. I dissent from the affirmance of Diaz-Diaz’s

sentence as it relates to the sentencing enhancements. Diaz-Diaz has requested to

submit a supplemental brief in light of the constitutional concerns raised by the

Supreme Court’s recent holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S.Ct.

2531 (2004). I would vacate Diaz-Diaz’s sentence and remand for further

consideration by the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2819 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/19/2004 Entry ID: 1801277