Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01693/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01693-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Isaac Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1693

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jose Isaac Hernandez, also known as * Eastern District of Missouri.

Felipe Mazahua, also known as *

Elisio Mejia-Rosario, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2005

Filed: October 12, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),

(b)(2). His offense level under the Guidelines was enhanced by 16 levels because of

his prior deportation after a drug-trafficking conviction for which the sentence was

longer than 13 months. Hernandez objected to this enhancement as being too severe,

and moved for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 for the same reason.

Viewing the Guidelines as advisory and stating that it would consider the sentencing

Appellate Case: 05-1693 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2005 Entry ID: 1962063
1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court1

 overruled the objection, finding that

the plain language of the Guidelines made the enhancement appropriate, and denied

the departure motion. The court sentenced Hernandez to 70 months imprisonment

and 2 years supervised release. Hernandez appeals, arguing that the district court

relied too heavily on the Guidelines range without adequately considering the other

section 3553(a) factors, and that his sentence was unreasonable because it overstated

the seriousness of his prior drug convictions.

We reject these arguments. The sentencing complied with United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), as the court properly treated the Guidelines as

advisory, determined that a departure was inappropriate, and considered the

sentencing factors in section 3553(a) before giving a Guidelines sentence. See United

States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2005) (after Booker, district court

must first determine appropriate Guidelines range, and then decide whether

traditional departure is appropriate under Part K and/or U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 of

Guidelines, to arrive at Guidelines sentence; court must then consider all other

sentencing factors in § 3553(a) to determine whether to impose Guidelines sentence

or non-Guidelines sentence), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. July 14, 2005) (No. 05-

5652). We also conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1693 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2005 Entry ID: 1962063