Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02117/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02117-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rigoberto Mondragon-Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2117

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Rigoberto Mondragon-Hernandez, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 15, 2005

Filed: May 27, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Rigoberto Mondragon-Hernandez (Mondragon-Hernandez) pleaded guilty to

distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(B), and appeals from the sentence of 87 months’ imprisonment and four years

of supervised release imposed by the district court.1

 We affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-2117 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908408
-2-

I. 

While under surveillance, a confidential informant received a one-gram sample

of methamphetamine from Mondragon-Hernandez. The informant ordered a pound

of methamphetamine from Mondragon-Hernandez, who was later arrested when he

supplied an undercover agent with 475.9 grams of the drug. 

The indictment listed the amount of methamphetamine as 50 grams or more.

 Mondragon-Hernandez admitted at his plea hearing that the total amount of

methamphetamine distributed by him and reasonably foreseeable to him was in excess

of 50 grams. The presentence investigation report (PSR) stated that MondragonHernandez had sold 475.9 grams of methamphetamine to the undercover agent. At

the sentencing hearing, Mondragon-Hernandez stated that he had no factual

objections to the presentence report. Adopting the PSR, the district court found that

Mondragon-Hernandez was responsible for at least 350 grams but less than 500

grams, granted a three-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, and thus

calculated a base offense level of 27 under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The district court then sentenced Mondragon-Hernandez to the minimum sentence

allowable under the 87 to 108-month range dictated by the then-mandatory guidelines

regime. 

 

II.

Mondragon-Hernandez contends that under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct.

2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), his guilty plea to the

indictment listing 50 grams or more quantity of methamphetamine dictates, after the

adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, a total offense level of 23 and a

maximum sentence of 71 months. The only factor in question is the amount of drugs

for which the district court found him responsible. Since no pertinent objection was

raised at trial, we review for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731(1993). To find plain error, “there must be (1) ‘error,’ (2)

that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’” Johnson v. United States,

Appellate Case: 04-2117 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908408
2

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s holding in Cotton establishes that MondragonHernandez’s claim would fail on the fourth factor of the Olano test. There, the

Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether that factor could be

established where the drug quantity for which the defendant was sentenced was

omitted from the indictment. The Court held that because the evidence that the

-3-

520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732). “If all three conditions

are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error,

but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation

of judicial proceedings.” U.S. v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631-32 (2002) (quoting

Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467). 

Booker requires that “[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is

necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts

established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or

proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” 125 S.Ct. at 756. MondragonHernandez claims that the maximum sentence for the offense listed in the indictment

is 71 months. Mondragon-Hernandez’s violation of § 841(a)(1) compels a

mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment and permits a maximum term

of 40 years’ imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii) (“In the case of a violation

of subsection (a) of this section involving...50 grams or more of a mixture or

substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or

salts of its isomers...such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which

may not be less than 5 years and not more than 40 years”). Counsel for MondragonHernandez stated at the sentencing hearing that his client had no factual objections

to the PSR, which referenced the 475.9-gram amount. Thus, he admitted this drug

quantity for purposes of Booker. See United States v. McCully, No. 04-1998, slip op.

at 3 (8th Cir. May 13, 2005) (citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3) and

concluding that “a fact in the PSR not specifically objected to is admitted for

purposes of Booker”).2

 At the plea hearing, both parties indicated that the ultimate

Appellate Case: 04-2117 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908408
conspiracy involved at least 50 grams of cocaine base was “overwhelming” and

“essentially uncontroverted,” it could not conclude that the fairness, integrity, or

public reputation of the judicial proceedings had been affected. Cotton, 535 U.S. at

633-34. Given Mondragon-Hernandez’s statement at sentencing that he did not

dispute the PSR’s recitation of drug quantity, the 475-gram amount is more than

“essentially uncontroverted.” 

-4-

guidelines range would likely reflect the 475-gram quantity referred to in the PSR.

Plea Tr. at 11.

The district court did, however, commit Booker error by applying the

guidelines as mandatory. See United States v. Pirani, No. 03-2871, slip op. at 8 (8th

Cir. Apr. 29, 2005). We held in Pirani that “before we may consider whether to

exercise our discretion under the fourth Olano factor to review a forfeited Booker

error, the defendant must show a ‘reasonable probability,’ based on the appellate

record as a whole, that but for the error he would have received a more favorable

sentence.” Pirani, slip op. at 11. We require that this be shown in order to satisfy the

third factor of the Olano test. Mondragon-Hernandez has made no showing along

these lines whatsoever and the record does not suggest that he could do so. Although

the sentence imposed was at the bottom of the guidelines range, we have held this to

be insufficient to make such a showing. Pirani, slip op. at 12 (“sentencing at the

bottom of the range is the norm for many judges, so it is insufficient, without more,

to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the court would have imposed a lesser

sentence absent the Booker error”). 

 

The sentence is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2117 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908408