Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03123/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03123-1/pdf.json

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

Document Text:

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[UNPUBLISHED]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: November 5, 2007 

 Filed: December 4, 2007

________________

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

________________

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court for

reconsideration in light of Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. ---, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (June

21, 2007). In Rita, the Supreme Court held that the “presumption [of reasonableness]

applies only on appellate review.” Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2465. “[T]he sentencing court

does not enjoy the benefit of a legal presumption that the Guidelines sentence should

apply.” Id. After reconsidering Ibarra’s sentence as directed by the Supreme Court,

we affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-3123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378630
1

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

District of Iowa.

-2-

Ibarra appealed 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). The district court sentenced Ibarra to

108 months’ imprisonment, a sentence at the lower end of his advisory sentencing

guidelines range of 108 to 135 months. This court affirmed the sentence. Further

discussion of the underlying facts in this matter may be found at United States v.

Ibarra, 220 Fed. Appx. 454 (8th Cir.), vacated, --- U.S. ---, 76 U.S.L.W. 3223 (Oct.

29, 2007) (No. 07-5130).

At sentencing, the district court discussed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and

also stated that a sentence within the advisory guidelines range was presumptively

reasonable. Ibarra did not object to the district court’s presumption. Therefore, we

now review Ibarra’s sentence for plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d

543, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Under plain error review, the defendant has the burden of proof. Id. (citing

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-35 (1993)). He must prove that there was

“(1) error, (2) that [was] plain, and (3) that affect[ed] substantial rights. If all three

conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a

forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or

public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520

U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997)). The district court committed error by stating that an

advisory guidelines sentence was presumptively reasonable. The error is plain at this

time. Id. However, this error did not affect substantial rights and was not prejudicial

to Ibarra because the record does not show “reasonable probability that he would have

received a more favorable sentence” without the presumption. Id. at 551. The district

court thoroughly discussed the § 3553(a) factors before it sentenced Ibarra. It stated:

Appellate Case: 06-3123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378630
-3-

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. . . .

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.

Due to the seriousness of the offense and the need to avoid unwarranted

sentencing disparities, see § 3553(a)(6), the district court determined that “the

sentencing guideline range is a reasonable range.” With this proper analysis of the §

3553(a) factors and the district court’s determination that the guidelines range

constituted a reasonable range, we are convinced that Ibarra cannot carry his burden

of showing that he would have received a lesser sentence in the absence of the district

court’s erroneous presumption. Accordingly, we affirm Ibarra’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3123 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378630