Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01350/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01350-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Juan Jose Vaca-Arceo
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1350

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Juan Jose Vaca-Arceo, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 27, 2006

Filed: February 8, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Jose Vaca-Arceo (Vaca-Arceo) appeals the 50-month sentence the district

court1

 imposed upon his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). For reversal, Vaca-Arceo argues the district court erred by

sentencing him under mandatory Sentencing Guidelines in violation of United States

v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 

Appellate Case: 05-1350 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2006 Entry ID: 2007467
-2-

Vaca-Arceo’s failure to object below to the district court’s mandatory

application of the Guidelines limits this court to a plain-error review. See United

States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266

(2005). While the district court plainly erred in sentencing Vaca-Arceo under a

mandatory application of the Guidelines, the error was not prejudicial because VacaArceo was sentenced toward the middle of the calculated Guidelines range and

nothing in the record suggests Vaca-Arceo would have received a more lenient

sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme. See United States v. Norman, 427

F.3d 537, 539-40 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding no prejudice where defendant was sentenced

in middle of the Guidelines range and there was no other indication in the record that

he would have received a more lenient sentence under an advisory Guidelines

scheme); Pirani, 406 F.3d at 550, 552-53 (plain-error test).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1350 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2006 Entry ID: 2007467