Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01536/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01536-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Macedonio Castillo-Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1536

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Macedonio Castillo-Hernandez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 16, 2005 

Filed: July 5, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Macedonio Castillo-Hernandez (“Castillo”) guilty of conspiring

to distribute at least 500 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine in March

and April 2003 (Count I), and of distributing at least 50 grams of a substance

containing methamphetamine on March 12, 2003 (Count II), in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 841(b)(1)(B). The district court1

 sentenced him to

240 months in prison, which was the statutory minimum because he had a prior felony

Appellate Case: 04-1536 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923775
-2-

drug conviction, and 10 years’ supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict and that the

district court erred in admitting hearsay testimony, in applying the statutory

mandatory minimum (because it is unconstitutional and results in sentencing

disparity), and in denying a minor-role reduction. Castillo has filed a pro se motion,

in which he argues that his sentence violates United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005). We affirm.

This court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence “in the light most favorable

to the government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the government, and

accepting all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence that support the jury’s

verdict.” United States v. Ramirez, 350 F.3d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting

United States v. Espino, 317 F.3d 788, 792 (8th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation

omitted). We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Castillo’s

conviction on both counts. As to Count II, although Castillo was not involved in the

actual transfer of methamphetamine on March 12, he quoted the price to the

undercover officer, led the officer to the site of the transfer, introduced him to Raul

Munoz Lopez, telling the officer that he trusted Lopez, and stood by while Lopez

made the transfer. As to Count I, the same evidence shows that Castillo conspired

with Lopez to distribute drugs on March 12, and the jury could have found from other

evidence that the later drug sales in March and April were foreseeable: Castillo told

the officer that he should deal with Lopez when Castillo was not around, and that the

officer and Lopez should exchange telephone numbers. See United States v.

Alexander, 408 F.3d 1003, 1009 (8th Cir. 2005) (in jointly undertaken criminal

activity, defendant is accountable for his own conduct and conduct of others that was

in furtherance of the activity and reasonably foreseeable).

We also find that the district court did not clearly err in admitting Lopez’s outof-court statements, see United States v. Edwards, 994 F.2d 417, 421 (8th Cir. 1993)

Appellate Case: 04-1536 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923775
-3-

(standard of review), and counsel’s constitutional challenge to the 20-year mandatory

minimum sentence fails as well, see United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 658-60 (8th

Cir. 1997) (mandatory life sentence under § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) does not violate due

process or Eighth Amendment), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 824 (1997); United States v.

Reeves, 83 F.3d 203, 207 (8th Cir. 1996) (challenge to sentence as disproportionate

to codefendant’s is precluded by prior precedent). Counsel’s argument that Castillo

is entitled to a mitigating-role reduction is moot, as the statutory minimum sentence

applies.

Finally, the Booker challenge raised in Castillo’s pro se appellate motion is

meritless, as his 20-year mandatory minimum sentence was based on the jury’s

finding that the offense involved at least 500 grams of a substance containing

methamphetamine, and the fact of a prior conviction. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756

(reaffirming 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”); United States v. Childs, 403 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir.

2005) (noting that “Booker re-affirmed established Supreme Court precedent that a

court, not a jury, determines the fact of a prior conviction”).

We have carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s judgment, deny appellant’s motion, and grant counsel leave to

withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1536 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/05/2005 Entry ID: 1923775