Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03547/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03547-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Santiago Valdivia-Perez
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3547

___________

United States of America,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Santiago Valdivia-Perez,

Defendant - Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Northern District of Iowa

 [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2006

 Filed: June 29, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and DOTY,1

 District Judge

___________

DOTY, District Judge.

Santiago Valdivia-Perez appeals the sentence imposed upon him following his

conviction for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance

containing a detectible amount of methamphetamine and to distribute cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. The district court2

Appellate Case: 05-3547 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2006 Entry ID: 2062581
-2-

originally sentenced Valdivia-Perez to life imprisonment. On appeal, this court

remanded for re-sentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

See United States v. Valdivia-Perez, 133 Fed. Appx. 347, 348 (8th Cir. June 6, 2005)

(unpublished per curiam). At re-sentencing, the district court made the same

guidelines calculations, found no reason for a variance and again sentenced ValdiviaPerez to life imprisonment. We affirm.

A jury convicted Valdivia-Perez of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine

and cocaine, but acquitted him of knowingly using and carrying a firearm during and

in relation to a drug trafficking crime. At the original sentencing hearing, the district

court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Valdivia-Perez possessed a gun

in connection with the drug-trafficking offense and enhanced his base offense level

under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). In particular, the court considered trial testimony that

Valdivia-Perez flashed a gun during drug transactions and traded firearms for cocaine.

Valdivia-Perez contends that the application of a two-level enhancement for

possession of a dangerous weapon violates his rights under the Fifth and Sixth

Amendments to the United States Constitution because a jury acquitted him of

knowingly using and carrying a firearm during and in relationship to a drug trafficking

crime. He further contends that the evidence does not support the district court's

finding that he possessed a gun in connection with the drug offense.

We review the district court's interpretation and application of the guidelines

de novo and the court's findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Mashek, 406

F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005). This court has already addressed and rejected the

argument that a jury's acquittal precludes the district court from considering whether

the government proved the same or similar conduct by a preponderance of the

evidence for sentencing purposes. See United States v. High Elk, 442 F.3d 622, 626

(8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Radtke, 415 F.3d 826, 844 (8th Cir. 2005) (after

jury's acquittal, "[t]he district court was still free, indeed obliged, to consider whether

Appellate Case: 05-3547 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2006 Entry ID: 2062581
3

Because defendant does not have the right to a jury trial under the Sixth

Amendment in this context, he also does not enjoy the alleged due process right to

proof beyond a reasonable doubt under the Fifth Amendment. See Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 484 (2000) (noting association between due process rights and

right to a jury trial).

-3-

[the defendant's] involvement had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence").

So long as a district court treats the guidelines as advisory, there is no Sixth

Amendment error in finding facts necessary to apply an enhancement.3

 United States

v. Salter, 418 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2005); see Booker, 543 U.S. at 246. Because the

record shows that the district court applied the guidelines in an advisory manner in

this case, fact-finding by the court was permissible.

Valdivia-Perez argues that the evidence does not support the district court's

finding because his use or possession of a firearm during his arrest was not

sufficiently connected to his drug-trafficking offense. However, the court did not

consider such evidence for the purpose of applying the enhancement. Rather, the

court referred to the original sentencing hearing in which it found that trial testimony

of Valdivia-Perez's use of firearms during drug transactions supported application of

the firearm enhancement. The record reflects adequate evidence to support such a

finding, and we find no error in the district court's application of the two-level

enhancement for possession of a firearm.

For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court's application of the

sentencing guidelines.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3547 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2006 Entry ID: 2062581