Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04355/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04355-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Lozano
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

 ___________

 No. 05-4076

 ___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Francisco Lozano, *

*

Appellant. *

 ___________

Appeals from the United States

 No. 05-4355 District Court for the 

 ___________ District of Nebraska.

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Francisco Lozano, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2007

Filed: May 25, 2007

___________

Appellate Case: 05-4355 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2007 Entry ID: 3313221
1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska. 

2

The government filed a cross-appeal (No. 05-4355), but has apparently

abandoned it.

-2-

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is Francisco Lozano’s third appeal to this court. See United States v.

Lozano, 63 Fed. Appx. 962 (8th Cir. 2003) (unpublished per curiam); United States

v. Lozano, 413 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2005). After the series of events detailed below,

Lozano pled guilty to two counts of distributing methamphetamine, violations of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). Following our most recent remand, the district

court1

 sentenced him to two concurrent 103-month prison terms, followed by two

concurrent five-year terms of supervised release, and ordered him to pay a $200

special assessment. Lozano appeals from this sentence, arguing that he should have

received a lesser sentence based on his role in the offense and that he should have

received credit for the time he served in state custody for another offense. We affirm.2

I.

In July 2001, a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Iowa returned an indictment charging Lozano with conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The charge stemmed from a sting

operation during which Lozano, serving as a delivery agent for Jose Campos, twice

delivered packages of methamphetamine to undercover agents who had arranged with

Campos for both purchases. Lozano initially pled guilty to the charge, but moved to

withdraw his plea prior to sentencing. After denying his motion, the district court

sentenced him to 160 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised released.

Appellate Case: 05-4355 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2007 Entry ID: 3313221
-3-

In Lozano’s ensuing appeal, we ruled that he should have been allowed to withdraw

his guilty plea and remanded the case for further proceedings. Lozano, 63 Fed. Appx.

at 963. After the remand, another grand jury, this time in the United States District

Court for the District of Nebraska, returned an indictment charging Lozano with one

count of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and two counts of distributing

methamphetamine, violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. The

indictment in the Northern District of Iowa was thereafter dismissed pursuant to the

government’s motion. Lozano pled guilty to the two distribution charges in the

District of Nebraska and the conspiracy charge was dismissed. He was sentenced to

two concurrent 116-month prison terms, followed by two concurrent five-year terms

of supervised release, and ordered to pay a $200 special assessment. On appeal, we

affirmed Lozano’s convictions, but vacated his sentence and remanded the case to the

district court for resentencing. Lozano, 413 F.3d at 883. 

Lozano’s revised presentence investigation report gave him a base offense level

of 32 and criminal history category of III. It also applied a two-level enhancement for

obstruction of justice and a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of

responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 31. The obstruction of justice

enhancement was recommended because Lozano had escaped from the Dakota County

Jail in Dakota City, Nebraska on July 17, 2001, while being detained on the instant

offense. He was rearrested that same day and sentenced on a state escape charge on

April 2, 2002. He was released from state custody on July 11, 2004. 

At resentencing, the district court addressed the applicability of the obstruction

of justice enhancement. The district court opined that the imposition of the

obstruction of justice enhancement would entitle Lozano to credit under U.S.S.G. §

5G1.3 for the time he served in state custody for the escape offense and, conversely,

that Lozano would not be entitled to such credit if the obstruction of justice

enhancement was not imposed. The district court declined to impose an obstruction

of justice enhancement or give Lozano credit for the time he served in state custody

Appellate Case: 05-4355 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/25/2007 Entry ID: 3313221
-4-

for the escape offense. Lozano’s total offense level was therefore determined to be

29, which resulted in a Guidelines range of 108 to 135 months. 

Lozano argued at resentencing that he should receive a sentence below the

Guidelines range based on his minimal involvement in the offense. He asserted that

he was merely a courier for Campos, who was the more culpable principal dealer. The

district court declined to impose a below-range sentence, but did give Lozano credit

for the five months he spent in custody prior to his escape and then imposed the

sentence described above. 

II.

Lozano contends that he should have received credit for the time he served in

state custody for the escape offense. He also asserts that the district court should have

imposed a lower sentence based on his minimal role in the offense. “‘We review a

district court’s interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines de novo and

its findings of fact for clear error.’” United States v. Alfonso, 479 F.3d 570, 572 (8th

Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Durham, 470 F.3d 727, 734 (8th Cir. 2006)).

“We review the reasonableness of a defendant’s sentence for abuse of discretion.”

United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946, 955 (8th Cir. 2007). 

Under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), a defendant may receive credit for time served on

a separate term of imprisonment if several conditions are met. One of these conditions

is that the offense for which that term of imprisonment was imposed must have been

“the basis for an increase in the offense level for the instant offense under Chapter

Two (Offense Conduct) or Chapter Three (Adjustments) . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b)

(2006). Here, Lozano is attempting to receive credit for time he served for his escape

offense. This offense was not factored into his criminal history calculation and, as

recounted above, did not result in the imposition of an obstruction of justice

enhancement. Nor was it the basis for any other increases in his offense level.

Appellate Case: 05-4355 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/25/2007 Entry ID: 3313221
-5-

Accordingly, the district court did not err in refusing to award Lozano credit for the

time he served on the state escape offense. See United States v. Hurley, 439 F.3d 955,

957 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the defendant could not receive credit for time

served on a related state charge because it was not the basis for an increase in his

offense level).

Lozano’s contention that he should have received a lesser sentence because of

his minimal role in the offense is also unpersuasive. The district court rejected this

argument at sentencing and, after taking into account the sentencing factors

enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), concluded that a sentence of 103 months was

appropriate. We agree with the district court’s analysis and conclude that the sentence

is not unreasonable. 

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4355 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/25/2007 Entry ID: 3313221