Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-03-02163/USCOURTS-ca10-03-02163-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Lozano-Morales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

May 26, 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

V. 

DANIEL LOZANO-MORALES, 

Defendant - Ap.pellant. 

No. 03-2163 

(D. New Mexico) 

(D.Ct. No. CR-03-359-MCA) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, LUCERO, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges. 

Mr. Lozano-Morales pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326(a)(l), (2), and (b)(2). He filed a motion for a 

downward departure based on cultural assimilation, delay in prosecution, and 

family ties and responsibilities. The district court denied his motion and 

sentenced him at 57 months imprisonment, the bottom of the guideline range. Mr. 

Lozano-Morales appealed and we held that (I) he waived his separation of powers 

• This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of 

law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the 

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under 

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 03-2163 Document: 010110642469 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 1
claim by pleading guilty (i.e., his argument that the prosecutor usurped the district 

court's sentencing power by delaying his federal prosecution until the completion 

of his state sentence, thereby preventing the district court from sentencing him 

concurrently), and (2) we lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's 

discretionary decision to deny his motion for downward departure on the ground 

that his circumstances did not warrant the departure. See United States v. LozanoMorales, No. 03-2163, 2004 WL 2677687 (10th Cir. Nov. 24, 2004). Mr. 

Lozano-Morales petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was 

granted. The Court vacated our judgment and remanded the case to us for further 

consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). For the 

following reasons, we reinstate our prior decision and affirm Mr. 

Lozano-Morales' sentence. 

As we held in United States v. Sierra-Castillo, our lack of jurisdiction to 

review a district court's discretionary decision not to depart downward is not 

impacted by Booker: 

Booker excised the statutory provision of the Sentencing Reform Act 

providing for the standard of review of sentences on appeal, 18 

U.S.C. § 3742(e), but left intact the section providing for appellate 

review of sentences, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). See Booker,125 S. Ct. at 

765 (noting that § 3 742(a) continues to provide for appellate review 

of Guidelines sentences). Pursuant to § 3 742(a), this court therefore 

continues to have the same jurisdiction to review Guidelines 

sentences as it had before the Supreme Court's decision in Booker. 

See Doe, 398 F .3d at 1256; see also United States v. Ruiz-Alonso, 

397 F.3d 815,817 (9th Cir.2005) (applying§ 3742(b)). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 03-2163 Document: 010110642469 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 2
405 F .3d 932, 936 n.3 (10th Cir. 2005). In other words, Booker notwithstanding, 

we still lack jurisdiction to review a district court's discretionary decision to deny 

a motion for a downward departure on the ground that a defendant's 

circumstances do not warrant the departure. Id. at 936. Moreover, the 

discretionary decision not to depart downward does not involve judicial fact 

finding that offends the Sixth Amendment. 1 

Nevertheless, we do review Mr. Lozano-Morales' sentence in light of 

Booker's remedial holding. Mr. Lozano-Morales did not raise United States v. 

Blakely, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004 ), or Booker in the district court or in his initial 

appeal. Thus, we review the district court's mandatory application of the 

guidelines for plain error. Sierra-Castillo, 405 F .3d at 941. Although Mr. 

Lozano-Morales was sentenced at the bottom of the guidelines range, he does not 

satisfy the fourth prong of plain error review because "his sentence is consistent 

with [the] national norm and there is no record evidence to support a lower 

1 Mr. Lozano-Morales' base offense level was increased by sixteen levels pursuant 

to USSG § 2L 1.2(b )(1 )(A)(ii) because he was previously deported after a conviction for a 

crime of violence. This enhancement does not implicate the Sixth Amendment because 

the rule announced in Booker specifically excludes from its application the fact of a prior 

conviction. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 755-56; Sierra-Castillo, 405 F.3d at 941 (finding nonconstitutional Booker error where defendant's base offense level was increased sixteen 

levels under crime of violence provision ofUSSG 2Ll.2(b)(l)(A)(ii)); United States v. 

Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d 814, 817-18 (10th Cir. 2005) (same). See also United States 

v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1221 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding Booker does not require the 

government to charge in the indictment or prove beyond a reasonable doubt either the 

existence of a prior conviction or its classification as a violent felony under the Armed 

Career Criminal Act). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 03-2163 Document: 010110642469 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 3
sentence." United States v. Gonzalez-Huerth, 403 F .3d 727, 73 8-39 (10th Cir. 

2005 ). 

Accordingly, we REINSTATE our prior decision holding that we lack 

jurisdiction over the two issues Mr. Lozano-Morales initially raised on appeal. 

The sentence imposed by the district court remains undisturbed. 

Entered by the Court: 

Terrence L. O'Brien 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 03-2163 Document: 010110642469 Date Filed: 05/26/2005 Page: 4