Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01843/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01843-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juda B. Aguilera
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1843

___________

United States, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Juda B. Aguilera, *

* 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2007

Filed: April 24, 2008

___________

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Juda B. Aguilera appeals the 135 month sentence the district court imposed

following his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and

abetting the distribution of methamphetamine. We vacate Aguilera's sentence and

remand for resentencing.

Appellate Case: 07-1843 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2008 Entry ID: 3426728
-2-

I

Aguilera pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and aiding and abetting the distribution

of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The

presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated a Guidelines range of 135-168

months, based on an offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of III.

At sentencing, Aguilera requested a sentence below the Guidelines range

claiming: (1) his criminal history category overstated his prior criminal conduct and

(2) the sentencing range failed to reflect his cooperation because it did not rise to the

level of substantial assistance. The government objected, noting the Guidelines are

presumptively reasonable and maintaining he had failed to rebut this presumption.

After acknowledging this Circuit's mandate about a presumption of reasonableness

applying to the Guidelines range, the district court concluded "[g]iven the crime and

the propensities shown by [Aguilera's] participation" 135 months imprisonment was

not "an unreasonable sentence." Sentencing Transcript at 7-8. 

On appeal Aguilera argues the district court's sentence determination was

unreasonable.

II

This court reviews a district court's sentence determination under an abuse of

discretion standard. The United States Supreme Court recently clarified the scope of

our review:

[T]he appellate court . . . must first ensure that the district court

committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or

improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as

mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence

Appellate Case: 07-1843 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2008 Entry ID: 3426728
-3-

based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the

chosen sentence--including an explanation for any deviation from the

Guidelines range. Assuming that the district court's sentencing decision

is procedurally sound, the appellate court should then consider the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an

abuse-of-discretion standard.

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). See also Koon v. United States,

518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996) ("The abuse-of-discretion standard includes review to

determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.").

III

As the Supreme Court made clear in Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456

(2007), the presumption of reasonableness is an appellate presumption and "the

sentencing court does not enjoy the benefit of a legal presumption that the Guidelines

sentence should apply." Id. at 2465. See also United States v. Wilms, 495 F.3d 277,

282 (6th Cir. 2007) (vacating and remanding defendant's sentence due to the district

court's imposition of a presumption of reasonableness in violation of Rita); United

States v. Foreman, 436 F.3d 638, 644 n.1 (6th Cir. 2006) ("[A] district court's job is

not to impose a 'reasonable' sentence. Rather, a district court's mandate is to impose

'a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes' of

section 3553(a)(2). Reasonableness is the appellate standard of review in judging

whether a district court has accomplished its task."). 

The record in this case demonstrates the district court applied a presumption of

reasonableness to the Guidelines. After acknowledging Eighth Circuit precedent

mandated application of a presumption of reasonableness to the Guidelines, the

district court imposed on Aguilera a within Guidelines sentence of 135 months. The

district court did not explain the basis for the sentence except to say: "Given the crime

and the propensities shown by [Aguilera’s] participation, I don't think that's an

Appellate Case: 07-1843 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2008 Entry ID: 3426728
-4-

unreasonable sentence." Sentencing Transcript at 7-8. The record leaves little doubt

the district court viewed the guidelines range as presumptively correct, as a

"super-factor" that Aguilera had to overcome. In light of Rita, this was plainly an

error of law, rendering Aguilera's sentence unreasonable. See Koon, 518 U.S. at 100

("A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.").

IV

Because we find the district court erred in applying a presumption of

reasonableness to the guidelines range, it is unecessary to address Aguilera's

additional contention that the district court failed to consider the factors set forth in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when formulating his sentence. We note, however, on remand

the district court "shall consider" the factors listed in § 3553(a) and, based on those

considerations and the proper guidelines range, impose a sentence which is "sufficient,

but not greater than necessary," to satisfy the purposes of sentencing set forth in §

3553(a)(2). 

V

Accordingly, we vacate Aguilera's sentence and remand for resentencing

consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1843 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/24/2008 Entry ID: 3426728