Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04175/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04175-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arturo Mendoza-Mendoza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4175

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Arturo Mendoza-Mendoza, true name * District of Nebraska.

Sergio Mendoza-Chavez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 20, 2006 

Filed: March 23, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arturo Mendoza-Mendoza, true name Sergio Mendoza-Chavez (MendozaChavez), pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute

500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture in Nebraska between January 1,

1997, and November 17, 2003, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1), (b)(1), and 846. Over Mendoza-Chavez’s objection and in reliance on the

government’s evidence at sentencing, the district court1

 calculated a Category II

Appellate Case: 04-4175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2006 Entry ID: 2024272
-2-

criminal history based on three points: one point for a disturbing-the-peace offense in

California, for which Mendoza-Chavez received a sentence of 54 days in jail and 12

months probation in January 2003; and two points for committing the instant offense

while on probation. The district court sentenced Mendoza-Chavez to 121 months’

imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Mendoza-Chavez’s counsel

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

noting the district court’s ruling on the criminal history objection.

We hold that the district court correctly determined Mendoza-Chavez

committed the conspiracy offense while he was under a criminal justice sentence. See

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d); United States v. Tolson, 988 F.2d 1494, 1499-1501 (7th Cir.

1993) (finding defendant, who pled guilty to a conspiracy spanning specific dates,

properly received criminal history points under § 4A1.1(d) for committing conspiracy

while on probation); cf. United States v. White, 408 F.3d 399, 404 (8th Cir.) (ruling

defendant admitted the dates alleged in the indictment when he pled guilty to the

indictment without reserving the right to challenge the dates at sentencing), cert

denied, 126 S. Ct. 674 (2005).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we conclude Mendoza-Chavez–who was, without objection,

erroneously sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines scheme–cannot demonstrate

plain error because the record does not establish the district court would have imposed

a more favorable sentence under advisory Guidelines. See United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220, 233-37, 245, 258-59 (2005); United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550-

53 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 266 (2005). We further conclude,

particularly in light of the quantity of methamphetamine involved, that MendozaChavez’s sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was not unreasonable. See

Booker, 543 U.S. at 261-62; United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005).

Appellate Case: 04-4175 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2006 Entry ID: 2024272
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4175 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2006 Entry ID: 2024272