Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04041/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04041-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria Del Rosario Tepozotlan-Gonzales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4041

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Maria Del Rosario *

Tepozotlan-Gonzales, also known * [UNPUBLISHED]

as Fatima Santana-Coronado, also *

known as Georgia Andrade-Tapia, *

also known Rosio Araceli Rico- *

Colorado, also known as Rita Aguilar, *

also known as Francisca Sanchez- *

Garcia, also known as Virginia *

Colorado-Rodiriguez, also known as *

Brenda Ruiz Pineda, also known as *

Veronica Lizarrega, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 5, 2007

Filed: November 9, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-4041 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2007 Entry ID: 3371536
1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-

Maria Del Rosario Tepozotlan-Gonzales challenges the 42-month sentence the

district court1

 imposed after she pleaded guilty to conspiring to transport stolen goods

in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 371, and 2. TepozotlanGonzales’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in imposing

enhancements for the amount of loss, the number of victims, and being in the business

of receiving stolen property. Tepozotlan-Gonzales argues in a pro se brief that the

district court usurped the role of the jury in imposing the enhancements, and that

counsel was ineffective for inducing her to plead guilty without fully informing her

of the consequences and for failing to adequately object to the presentence report

(PSR).

Reviewing the district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo and its

factual findings for clear error, see United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1014

(8th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 76 U.S.L.W. 3065 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2007) (No. 07-161), we

find that the enhancements imposed by the district court were appropriate:

Tepozotlan-Gonzales’s plea-hearing admissions and the uncontested facts in the PSR

support the district court’s finding that her co-conspirators’ actions were reasonably

foreseeable to Tepozotlan-Gonzales and warranted the enhancements, see United

States v. Pierce, 479 F.3d 546, 549 (8th Cir. 2007) (defendant in criminal conspiracy

is responsible for offenses committed by fellow conspirators if defendant was member

of conspiracy when offense was committed, and if offense was committed in

furtherance of and as foreseeable consequence of conspiracy), and also support the

finding that she was in the business of receiving stolen property, see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1

comment. (n.5) (setting out non-exhaustive list of factors to consider).

Appellate Case: 05-4041 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2007 Entry ID: 3371536
-3-

We also reject Tepozotlan-Gonzales’s argument that the sentencing

enhancements had to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, as the district

court treated the Guidelines as advisory (and in fact deviated below the Guidelines

range). See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233-37, 245, 258-59 (2005) (Sixth

Amendment problem resulting from mandatory nature of Guidelines is remedied by

making Guidelines advisory); United States v. Salter, 418 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir.

2005) (after Booker, district court may enhance sentence based on judge-found facts

if court views Guidelines as advisory). Finally, Tepozotlan must pursue any

ineffective-assistance claims in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United

States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm,

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Tepozotlan-Gonzales’s motion

for appointment of counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4041 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/09/2007 Entry ID: 3371536