Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03489/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03489-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Jose Espinoza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3489

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Andrew Jose Espinoza

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________

 Submitted: May 18, 2016

 Filed: August 8, 2016 

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

BENTON, Circuit Judge. 

Andrew Jose Espinoza pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50

grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, a mixture containing

cocaine, and a mixture containing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1)

and (b)(1)(B). He objects he is not a career offender and his 188-month sentence is

unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 

Appellate Case: 15-3489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Entry ID: 4434937 
Shortly before he pled guilty, Espinoza violated the terms of his pretrial release

by threatening staff at his halfway house. The revised PSR classified Espinoza as a

career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, due to a prior felony conviction for

possession with intent to deliver a hazardous drug, and two prior felony convictions

for a crime of violence (a Nebraska conviction for terroristic threats and a Texas

conviction for burglary of a building). Espinoza objected to the career offender

designation. 

Before sentencing, the district court notified the partiesthat it was considering 1

an upward variance regardless of the outcome of the career offender issue because of

Espinoza’s “extensive criminal history and the conduct that caused revocation of

pretrial release.” At sentencing, the district court applied the career offender

enhancement, increasing the guideline range from 130-168 months to 188-235

months. The district court said:

With respect to the career offender—the legal questions regarding the

career offender issue, even if the defendant was technically not a career

offender, I would, nevertheless, sentence him as if he were because of

two things. Under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a), one of the things that I must. . . 

consider is to protect the public from future crimes of the offender. The

defendant’s criminal history in this case is, as I have said a moment ago,

breathtaking. Moreover,the presentence report indicatesthat his pretrial

release was revoked because he made threats to the staff at the halfway

house, so to speak, where he was being treated. That suggests to me a

very high risk—those two things suggest to me a very high risk to

re-offend, similar to the very high risk that we see in career offenders.

So, I will upwardly vary accordingly.

The court sentenced Espinoza to 188 months’ imprisonment. Espinoza argues that

the district court erred in applying the career offender enhancement because the two

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Nebraska. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3489 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Entry ID: 4434937 
convictions for terroristic threats and burglary of a building are not crimes of violence

under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. He also claims the sentence is unreasonable

It is “unnecessary to address whether [Espinoza] qualifies as a career offender,

because the district court’s alternative decision to vary upward from the advisory

guideline range is sufficient to justify the sentence imposed.” See United States v.

Hentges, 817 F.3d 1067, 1068 (8th Cir. 2016). The discussion at sentencing shows

that “the district court thought the sentence it chose was appropriate irrespective of

the Guidelines range.” Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1346-47

(2016) (“Judges may find that some cases merit a detailed explanation of the reasons

the selected sentence is appropriate. And that explanation could make it clear that the

judge based the sentence he or she selected on factors independent of the

Guidelines.”). 

This court “may not apply a presumption of unreasonableness” when a

sentence is outside the guidelinesrange. United States v. Moralez, 808 F.3d 362, 368

(8th Cir. 2015). This court “may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give

due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole,

justify the extent of the variance.” Id. Espinoza violated his pretrial release by

threatening the staff at his halfway house. The district court found that he had a high

risk of re-offending, and that the need to protect the public outweighed anymitigating

factors. Espinoza’s sentence—20 months above the original guidelines—is based on

the court’s consideration of the statutory goals ofsentencing and factors in § 3553(a). 

See Hentges, 817 F.3d at 1068-69 (affirming district court’s upward variance based,

in part, on defendant’s “extensive criminal history”, and his “extremely poor”

performance on correctional supervision). The district court’s above-guidelines

sentence is reasonable. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3489 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Entry ID: 4434937 
* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-3489 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Entry ID: 4434937