Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02112/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02112-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin Avalos-Zarate
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH FIL ... .J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPWtild States Court of Appeal, 'fenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

BENJAMIN AVALOS-ZARATE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB 171993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-2112 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. 90-157 HB) 

Submitted on the Briefs.* 

Richard C. Cauble, Las Cruces, New Mexico, for DefendantAppellant. 

Don J . Svet, United States Attorney, Stephen R. Kotz, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico for PlaintiffAppellee. 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

KELLY, Circuit Judge. 

Mr. Avalos-Zarate pled guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute less than SO kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 

§ 84l(a) (1), (b) (1) (D), 18 U.S.C. § 2, and was sentenced, based on 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. ~ Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-2112 Document: 010110175751 Date Filed: 02/17/1993 Page: 1 
an offense level of 18 and a criminal history category of III, to 

41 months imprisonment. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, the 

proper guideline range was 33-41 months. See U.S . S.G. ch. 5, pt. 

A (Sentencing Table). Defense counsel filed an Anders brief. 

Anders v. California. 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). The government 

urges us to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, correctly 

pointing out that a sentence imposed within the correct guideline 

range is not appealable under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. ~ United States 

v. Garcia, 919 F.2d 1478, 1481-82 (10th Cir. 1990). 

The transcript indicates that in imposing sentence the 

district judge declared: "The offense level is 18, criminal 

history category of 3, establishing a sentencing range of 33 to 46 

months." III R. 9. The judge then sentenced the defendant to 41 

months. As noted, the correct guideline range is 33-41 months, 

not 33-46 months. Although the presentence report and the written 

judgment recite the correct guideline range, the trial transcript 

does not and, therefore, conflicts with the written judgment 

insofar as the appropriate sentencing range perceived by the 

district court. 

In a somewhat analogous situation, we have held that "an 

orally pronounced sentence controls over a judgment and commitment 

order when the two conflict." United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 

1448, 1450 (10th Cir. 1987). ~ .a.l.§.Q united States v. Sasser, 

974 F.2d 1544, 1562 (10th Cir. 1992), ~- denied. 61 U.S.L.W. 

3499 (Jan. 19, 1993); United States v, Staggs, 881 F.2d 1546, 1548 

(10th Cir. 1989), ~- denied. 493 U.S. 1020 (1990). We also 

have recognized that "basing a sentence on the wrong guideline 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-2112 Document: 010110175751 Date Filed: 02/17/1993 Page: 2 
range constitutes a fundamental error affecting substantial rights 

within the meaning of Rule 52(b)," Fed. R. Crim. P. United States 

v. Herndon. No. 91-7077, 1992 WL 360617, *6 (10th Cir. 1992). 

When a district court relies on an incorrect guideline fine range, 

we have vacated the fine and remanded for resentencing, 

notwithstanding that the fine imposed was within the correct 

guideline. ~ United States v. Hollis, 971 F.2d 1441, 1460-61 

(10th Cir. 1992), J;2tt. ~ ~- filed, 61 U.S.L.W. 3500 (Dec. 30, 

1992) (No. 92-1131) ; united states v, Washington-Williams, 945 

F.2d 325, 326-28 (10th Cir. 1991). This situation is no 

different; we cannot be certain that the 41 months selected by the 

district court was in reference to the correct range of 33-41 

months or the incorrect range of 33-46 months. 

Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED to the district court to 

VACATE the sentence and resentence in accordance with this 

opinion. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith.. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-2112 Document: 010110175751 Date Filed: 02/17/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-2112 Document: 010110175751 Date Filed: 02/17/1993 Page: 4