Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02551/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02551-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Miguel Angel Vargas
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2551

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the District of

* Minnesota.

Miguel Angel Vargas, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 20, 2005

 Filed: August 30, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Miguel Angel Vargas pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiring

to distribute, and possessing with intent to distribute, methamphetamine. In exchange

for the guilty plea, the government agreed to dismiss an additional count against

Vargas. In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated to a base offense level of 28. By

the express terms of the plea agreement, Vargas agreed to be sentenced according to

the federal Sentencing Guidelines. The plea agreement also provided that the parties’

Appellate Case: 04-2551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2005 Entry ID: 1945956
1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief United States District Judge

for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

stipulations were not binding upon the district court1

 and that the district court was

free to make its own determinations as to which factors would affect Vargas’s

sentence.

On June 3, 2004, the district court found a base offense level of 32 which was

the base offense level suggested in the presentence report. The higher offense level

was premised on the presentence report’s allegation that Vargas was in possession of

104.67 grams of actual methamphetamine, rather than the 219.14 grams of a mixed

substance containing methamphetamine stipulated by the parties. Vargas did not

object to the base offense level finding and declined to withdraw his guilty plea. In

adopting the recommendations of the presentence report, the district court found that

Vargas was subject to a Sentencing Guideline range of 70 to 87 months

imprisonment. The district court sentenced Vargas to a bottom-of-the-range sentence

of 70 months. 

Vargas now appeals his sentence based upon the Supreme Court’s opinions in

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) and United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct.

738 (2005). Because Vargas raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we review

for plain error. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir. 2005). Under

Pirani, a defendant must show error that is plain and that affected his or her

substantial rights. Id. at 550. To make the showing of substantial rights

infringement, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that the district court

would have granted a lesser sentence had the district court not treated the Sentencing

Guidelines as mandatory. Id. at 552. 

Vargas argues that his sentence was in violation of the Sixth Amendment under

Booker because a jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt the amount of actual

Appellate Case: 04-2551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2005 Entry ID: 1945956
-3-

methamphetamine that resulted in a higher sentence. This is sufficient to constitute

error under Pirani.

However, there is no prejudice in the present matter. Here, the district court

imposed a bottom-of-the-range sentence. There is nothing else in the record to

indicate that the district court would have granted a lesser sentence had it treated the

Sentencing Guidelines as advisory. Under Pirani, a bottom-of-the-range sentence

alone is insufficient to make the required showing of prejudice. Id. at 553. As a

result, Pirani forecloses relief on the facts of this case.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge, concurring.

I adhere to the view stated by Judge Bye in Pirani, that defendants who did not

properly preserve their Booker claims in the district court are nonetheless generally

entitled to resentencing under a constitutional regime. See United States v. Pirani,

406 F.3d 543, 562-67 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (Bye, J., dissenting). Because a

majority of our court has held to the contrary, however, I concur.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 04-2551 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/30/2005 Entry ID: 1945956