Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02120/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02120-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Gonzalez-Torres
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2120

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Juan Gonzalez-Torres, * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Appellant, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

___________

Submitted: May 31, 2005

Filed: June 8, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Gonzalez-Torres (Gonzalez) pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the

United States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district

court1

 found Gonzalez was subject to a 16-level enhancement based on a prior

conviction, and sentenced him to 70 months in prison and 2 years supervised release.

On appeal, counsel initially filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

Appellate Case: 04-2120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Entry ID: 1912832
-2-

(1967), arguing that the district court erred in not granting a downward departure

from the Guidelines range. Counsel later filed motions in this court (1) to file a

supplemental brief so that he may raise the issue whether the facts underlying

Gonzalez’s 16-level enhancement needed to be found by a jury; and (2) to remand for

resentencing based on Booker v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

The district court stated at sentencing that reentry under duress was a

permissible basis for departure but did not justify departure here, that Gonzalez’s

criminal history category was appropriately determined, and that Gonzalez’s case was

not extraordinary. These statements indicate the court was aware of its authority to

depart, and thus, the court’s refusal to depart is unreviewable. See United States v.

Mohr, No. 03-3533, 2005 WL 1060574, at *3 (8th Cir. May 6, 2005) (per curiam)

(denial of downward departure unreviewable where district court was aware of its

authority to depart). Gonzalez’s claim that the facts underlying his 16-level

enhancement needed to be found by a jury also fails, as the enhancement was based

on the fact of a prior conviction. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756 (reaffirming that

“[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence

exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a

jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a

reasonable doubt”); United States v. Childs, 403 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir. 2005)

(“Booker re-affirmed established Supreme Court precedent that a court, not a jury,

determines the fact of a prior conviction”); United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982,

984 (8th Cir. 2005) (rejecting argument that nature of prior conviction is to be treated

differently from fact of prior conviction).

Finally, we review for plain error whether Gonzalez’s sentence was illegal

because he was sentenced under mandatory Guidelines, and we conclude that reversal

is not warranted. Although there was error in using the mandatory scheme, and the

error was plain, it did not affect Gonzalez’s substantial rights, as he cannot show a

reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would have received a more favorable

Appellate Case: 04-2120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Entry ID: 1912832
-3-

sentence. See United States v. Pirani, No. 03-2871, slip op. at 12 & n.6 (8th Cir. Apr.

29, 2005) (en banc) (sentencing at bottom of Guidelines range and expressing dislike

of Guidelines was not sufficient to establish reasonable probability that district court

would have imposed more lenient sentence).

We have also carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s judgment. We deny the appellate motions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2120 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Entry ID: 1912832