Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-01651/USCOURTS-ca7-09-01651-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ruben Galarza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 24, 2010

Decided March 25, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐1651

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

RUBEN GALARZA,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 07 CR 60‐1

Wayne R. Andersen,

Judge.

O R D E R

Ruben Galarza pleaded guilty to his role in a cocaine distribution conspiracy that

moved 300 kilograms of cocaine every two weeks, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and was

sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment.  Galarza filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed

lawyer has asked to withdraw because he has determined that any appeal would be

frivolous.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  We invited Galarza to respond to

counsel’s submission, see CIR. R. 51(b), but he did not.  We limit our review to the issues

considered in counsel’s facially sufficient supporting brief.  See United States v. Schuh, 289

F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-1651 Document: 31 Filed: 03/25/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐1651 Page 2

Counsel tells us that Galarza does not want his guilty plea vacated, and so he

properly omits any discussion of the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of

the plea.  See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670‐72 (7th Cir. 2002).  

Counsel first considers whether Galarza might challenge the district court’s

calculation of his recommended guidelines range.  But any such challenge would be

frivolous.  The district court correctly calculated Galarza’s final offense level to be 34

(accounting for reductions for acceptance of responsibility and the “safety valve”) and his

criminal history category to be I, resulting in a recommended imprisonment range of 151 to

188 months.

Counsel next considers whether Galarza might renew his argument that he should

have received a three‐level reduction for acceptance‐of‐responsibility (rather than two)

because he pleaded guilty before trial.  Noting that his plea on the eve of trial made that

reduction unlikely, the district court correctly recognized that the further reduction would

be appropriate only if the government had asked for it, and here it had not.  See United States

v. Deberry, 576 F.3d 708, 710 (7th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed, (Oct. 30, 2009)

(No. 09‐7351).  Any such challenge would therefore be frivolous.

Finally counsel considers whether Galarza might challenge the reasonableness of his

sentence.  The court sentenced him to the bottom of the suggested range, and a sentence

within a properly calculated range is presumed reasonable.   See Rita v. United States, 551

U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Cano‐Rodriguez, 552 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir. 2009).

Moreover, at sentencing the court considered Galarza’s argument that he should be

sentenced similarly to his coconspirator who received a sentence of 47 months’

imprisonment.  Although the court expressed sympathy with that argument, it concluded

that a sentence at the low end of the guidelines was more appropriate because Galarza’s

crime involved a “staggering” amount of drugs whose impact would be felt both in terms of

gangland murders and kids becoming addicted.  The district court weighed the appropriate

factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), emphasizing that although a shorter sentence might have

provided adequate deterrence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), the guidelines sentence would

more adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime and promote respect for the law, id. §

3553(a)(2)(A).  Because the court meaningfully considered the § 3553(a) factors, any

argument challenging Galarza’s sentence would be frivolous.  See, e.g., United States v.

Panaigua‐Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is

DISMISSED.

Case: 09-1651 Document: 31 Filed: 03/25/2010 Pages: 2