Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02178/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02178-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mariano Loya-Ramos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FI LED 

Uoired States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

MARIANO LOYA-RAMOS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JUL 311992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk No. 91-2178 

(D.C. No. 91-147-JB) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant-appellant Mariano Loya-Ramos appeals his sentence 

following a judgment of conviction from a guilty plea to 

reentering the United States after being deported subsequent to a 

felony conviction. 8 u.s.c. SS 1326(a), (b)(l). The district 

court sentenced Defendant to twenty-seven months imprisonment 

pursuant to the sentencing guidelines followed by a three-year 

period of supervised release. Defendant contends that the 

sentence was excessive and in violation of the sentencing 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-2178 Document: 010110275186 Date Filed: 07/31/1992 Page: 1
guidelines. 1 

The district court accepted the presentence report's 

calculation of the offense level at ten,~ u.s.s.G. SS 2Ll.2(a), 

(b)(l), which included a two-level reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility. Id. S 3El.l. Defendant's criminal history 

category was V based on a total of 10 criminal history points. 

Id. S 4Al.1. In response to a direct question by the district 

court at sentencing, Defendant expressed no factual dispute with 

the presentence report. Accordingly, Defendant's guideline range 

was properly calculated as 21-27 months. While the district court 

sentenced Defendant to the maximum within the guideline range, we 

have no jurisdiction to review a sentence within the appropriate 

range. United States v. Garcia, . 919 F.2d 1478, 1482 (10th Cir. 

1990). Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

1 Defendant's attorney has filed an Anders brief on appeal contending that his review of the record and research of the law 

led him to conclude that the appeal is frivolous and without 

merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 

Nonetheless, we are required to fully examine the sentencing 

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is in fact frivolous. 

Id. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-2178 Document: 010110275186 Date Filed: 07/31/1992 Page: 2
did not at the sentencing hearing, dispute the presentence report 

statement that the victim had testified that Mr. Cervantes "began 

choking and hitting her" during the offense. While the relevant 

statute, 18 u.s.c. S 2244(a)(l), does not define "force" the legislative history of the statute states that "[t]he requirement of 

force may be satisfied by a showing of the use of such 

physical force as is sufficient to overcome, restrain or injure a 

person •• " H.R. Rep. No. 594, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 14 n. 54a, 

reprinted in 1986 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 6186, 6194 n.54a. 

See United States v. Lauck, 905 F.2d 15, 17 (2d Cir. 1990). 2 Hitting and choking the victim is obviously sufficient to justify the 

conclusion that force was used. See United States v. Eagle 

Thunder, 893 F.2d 950, 954 ·(8th Cir. 1990); United States v. 

Demarrias, 876 F.2d 674, 678 (8th Cir. 1989); cf. United States v. 

Fire Thunder, 908 F.2d 272, 274 (8th Cir. 1990). We therefore 

find no error in the district court's selection of a base offense 

level of 16, which selection we review de rn. See United States 

v. Maltais, 961 F.2d 1485, 1486 (10th Cir. 1992). 

We AFFIRM the imposition of the sentence. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

2 We need not reach the question of whether the evidence shows 

that Mr. Cervantes also threatened his victim, because the 

unobjected to evidence does show that he used force. Thus, his 

argument that the evidence does not show a threat is irrelevant. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-2178 Document: 010110275186 Date Filed: 07/31/1992 Page: 3