Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01653/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01653-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Salvador Ramirez-Becerra
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1653

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Salvador Ramirez-Becerra, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: March 13, 2006

Filed: March 20, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Government charged Salvador Ramirez-Becerra with possession with

intent to distribute five hundred grams or more of methamphetamine. Based on this

drug quantity, Ramirez-Becerra faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in

prison. During the plea hearing, Ramirez-Becerra stated he understood the mandatory

minimum sentence was ten years, and pleaded guilty. Later, Ramirez-Becerra did not

object to the presentence report, which recommended the statutory minimum sentence

of ten years. At the post-Booker sentencing, the parties agreed that the appropriate

Appellate Case: 05-1653 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022525
*

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

of Nebraska. 

-2-

range was 120 to 135 months. The district court*

 imposed the statutory minimum of

120 months in prison and five years of supervised release. 

On appeal, Ramirez-Becerra contends Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545,

568-69 (2002) (holding judges may decide facts giving rise to mandatory minimum

sentences) is no longer good law after Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004),

and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We have continued to apply

Harris after Booker, however. United States v. Keller, 413 F.3d 706, 710 (8th Cir.

2005). Alternatively, Ramirez-Becerra argues that even if Harris remains good law,

Booker required the district court to find drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have rejected this argument as well. United States v. McKay, 431 F.3d 1085,

1094 (8th Cir. 2005). In this case, there is simply no error under Blakely or Booker

because Ramirez-Becerra admitted to possessing the drug quantity that dictated his

statutory mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 412

F.3d 942, 946 n.3 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bolanos, 409 F.3d 1045, 1049 (8th

Cir. 2005). 

We thus affirm Ramirez-Becerra’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1653 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022525