Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04097/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04097-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christian Garnica
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4097

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District 

* of Nebraska.

Christian Garnica, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 15, 2007

 Filed: February 23, 2007 

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christian Garnica was charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). A jury convicted Garnica, but found

that the quantity of methamphetamine was only between fifty and 500 grams. The

district court1

 then sentenced him to ninety-two months in prison. Garnica appeals his

conviction and his sentence, arguing that (1) the evidence, which was based primarily

Appellate Case: 05-4097 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281400
-2-

on the testimony of cooperating witnesses, was insufficient to support his conviction;

and (2) his sentence was unreasonable. We affirm. 

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence “in the

light most favorable to the government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the

government, and accepting all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence that

support the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Mangine, 302 F.3d 819, 822 (8th Cir.

2002) (internal marks omitted). “We will only reverse if no reasonable jury could

have found [the defendant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.

Velazquez, 410 F.3d 1011, 1015 (8th Cir. 2005).

Garnica argues that the evidence the government presented at trial was

insufficient to enable the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy to

distribute methamphetamine existed or that he had joined such a conspiracy. Garnica

bases his argument on the alleged unreliability of the government’s witnesses, all but

one of whom had entered into agreements with the government prior to testifying.

According to Garnica, the “horrendous criminal records and histories of drug abuse”

of the government’s witnesses make it impossible for any reasonable jury to find

Garnica guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The government’s case against Garnica included the testimony of seven

cooperating witnesses and two law enforcement officers. All of the cooperating

witnesses testified that they had purchased methamphetamine or what Garnica said

was methamphetamine from Garnica. An eighth witness testified that she had seen

Garnica involved in the exchange of money. The testimony of all seven cooperators

was subject to cross-examination by Garnica’s counsel. The jury heard information

regarding the witnesses’ criminal histories, drug use, and cooperation with the

government during cross and direct examination and through the testimony of Special

Agent Frank Feden of the Drug Enforcement Agency. Additionally, the jury heard

Appellate Case: 05-4097 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281400
-3-

about the effects of methamphetamine use through the testimony of a retired Omaha

Police Officer, Sergeant Mark Langan. 

“Attacks on the sufficiency of the evidence that call upon this court to scrutinize

the credibility of witnesses are generally not an appropriate ground for reversal.”

United States v. McKay, 431 F.3d 1085, 1094 (8th Cir. 2005). “[T]he credibility of

witnesses is a matter for the jury.” Mangine, 302 F.3d at 823. In this case, the jury

heard testimony from seven different people about Garnica’s involvement with

methamphetamine. The jury “evidently found at least some of those witnesses

credible.” Id. The evidence presented at trial is sufficient to support Garnica’s

conviction. 

Garnica also contends that his sentence of ninety-two months in prison is

unreasonable. Specifically, Garnica argues that his sentence, which fell at the bottom

of the undisputed advisory Guidelines range of ninety-two to 115 months’

imprisonment, “failed to meet the sentencing standards of § 3553(a).” Since Booker,

sentencing courts are “obliged to take account of [the advisory Guidelines sentencing]

range along with the sentencing goals Congress enumerated in the [Sentencing

Reform Act] at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856, 867

(2007) (internal marks omitted). Accordingly, a sentencing court now goes through

a three-step process in determining a defendant’s sentence. First, the court

“determine[s] the appropriate guidelines sentencing range.” United States v. Haack,

403 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2005). Second, the court “decide[s] if a traditional

departure is appropriate.” Id. at 1003. Third, the court “consider[s] all other factors

set forth in § 3553(a) to determine whether to impose the sentence under the

guidelines or a non-guidelines sentence.” Id. 

In cases where there is no dispute concerning the district court’s calculation of

the advisory Guidelines range, we must only determine whether the sentence imposed

by the district court is reasonable. United States v. Beal, 463 F.3d 834, 836 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 05-4097 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281400
-4-

2006). “A sentence falling within the applicable guideline range is presumptively

reasonable.” United States v. Lewis, 436 F.3d 939, 946 (8th Cir. 2006). As stated

above, Garnica’s sentence was within the Guidelines range. At Garnica’s sentencing

hearing, the court specifically stated that it was “considering the factors listed in [§

3553(a)],” and then read through the factors, taking each into account. The court then

imposed a sentence of ninety-two months’ imprisonment, which is at the bottom of

the Guidelines range. After reviewing the record, we conclude that Garnica’s sentence

was reasonable. Indeed, even if Garnica's within-Guidelines sentence was not

presumed to be reasonable under our precedents, we would still find that the district

court acted reasonably in imposing a sentence of ninety-two months in prison.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4097 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281400