Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02263/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02263-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Francisco Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard S. Arnold died on September 23, 2004. This opinion

following remand from the Supreme Court is filed by the remaining judges of the

original panel. See 8th Cir. R. 47E. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

__________

03-2263

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Missouri.

Juan Francisco Gonzalez, also known *

as Michael Andrew Quinones, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 28, 2006 

 Filed: July 18, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, RICHARD S. ARNOLD,1

 and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

We affirmed the criminal conviction and life sentence imposed upon Juan

Francisco Gonzalez in an earlier opinion. United States v. Gonzalez, 365 F.3d 656

(8th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court then granted certiorari based on sentencing issues

Appellate Case: 03-2263 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2006 Entry ID: 2068413 
2

As to the issues unrelated to sentencing that we decided in our prior opinion,

including Fourth Amendment issues, issues related to Spanish language translations,

and the sufficiency of the evidence, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the

reasons set forth in our prior opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari as to

sentencing issues and remanded with specific reference to Booker. As such, we find

no basis for disturbing our prior rulings on these other issues.

-2-

under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). After the Supreme Court issued

its opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Court vacated our

judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Booker.

2

 We now affirm.

Our review under Booker is for plain error because Gonzalez did not raise the

Blakely issue below. Because the district court made factual findings and

understandably applied the Guidelines as mandatory, there was error. Under our plain

error test, we consider Booker error to have affected a defendant’s substantial rights

only if the existing record demonstrates a “reasonable probability” that the district

court would have imposed a lesser sentence under an advisory regime. United States

v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 2005). The defendant bears the burden of

proving plain error. Id. at 550. If the record is ambiguous or if we are forced to

speculate as to what might have happened under an advisory regime, then the

defendant has not met his burden. Id. at 553 (“‘[W]here the effect of the error on the

result in the district court is uncertain or indeterminate-where we would have to

speculate-the appellant has not met his burden of showing a reasonable probability

that the result would have been different but for the error.’”) (quoting United States

v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th Cir. 2005)).

In calculating the then-mandatory Guidelines range, the district court applied

enhancements, including an enhancement for a leadership role, and arrived at a

Guidelines offense level of forty-four. The district court also found that Gonzalez had

a category one criminal history and described this history as “a curiosity” in that

Gonzalez was “so heavily involved in a drug trafficking enterprise” and yet had no

Appellate Case: 03-2263 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2006 Entry ID: 2068413 
-3-

juvenile or adult criminal record. As noted by the district court, the applicable

Guidelines range was not a range, but a mandate of life imprisonment. The district

court expressly commented on the lack of discretion afforded by the Guidelines in this

case, saying, “Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the only sentence that

the Court has available is life imprisonment.” We interpret these comments as neutral

observations on the practical realities of the case rather than expressions of a desire

to sentence Gonzalez to a term of years.

Elsewhere, the district court appeared sympathetic. The sentencing judge read

into the record letters of support written on behalf of Gonzalez, noted that the letters

had made an impression, and stated, “I make these comments on the record as some

support for you as you proceed down a monstrously difficult road.” These comments

however, were countered by other statements from the district court regarding the

propriety of a life sentence and the impact of Gonzalez’s crime on numerous victims.

The district court stated:

As I heard the testimony in this case, I was stricken by several things.

One, the enormous amount of drugs that were involved. The grief that

was imposed upon so many people. The lives of so many other people

that testified here that were irrevocably changed by this conduct which

you led as an organizer. And while people generally who get involved

in these things must take responsibility for themselves and they can’t

blame it all on you, clearly, you had a – role in that activity insofar as

they were concerned.

The other thing I observed in that trial was from you personally. In

listening to the wiretaps evidence, in hearing the testimony, I kept trying

to determine how it was that you got involved in this in the first place,

and I’ll probably never have the answer to that question. The letters

refer to you as being very intelligent, which I absolutely believe that you

are, and I suppose my only wish is that somehow it would be possible for

the time to be reversed and that another path could have been chosen by

you, but that’s really not my role to decide. 

Appellate Case: 03-2263 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/18/2006 Entry ID: 2068413 
-4-

Based upon the serious nature of the instant offense which involved a

conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine

and marijuana and in consideration of Defendant’s leadership role in the

instant offense, a sentence of life imprisonment would seem to address

sentencing objectives of just punishment, general deterrence, and

incapacitation.

Even if we were to read these statements by the district court in a light favorable

to Gonzalez, we find that they establish, at most, ambiguity. The court clearly

understood that numerous supporters thought highly of Gonzalez, and the court itself

viewed Gonzalez as an intelligent man who made unfortunate choices that led to

extensive criminal activity. The court nevertheless was impressed with the scale of

the criminal enterprise and the substantial impact of the crimes on numerous lives and

stated that it viewed a life sentence as appropriate. Because these comments establish

at most ambiguity and not a reasonable probability that the district court would have

imposed a term of years under an advisory regime, we must allow the sentence to

stand. Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2263 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/18/2006 Entry ID: 2068413