Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03987/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03987-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Santiago Valdivia-Perez
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3987

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United

v. * States District Court for 

* the Northern District of Iowa.

Santiago Valdivia-Perez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 16, 2004

Filed: June 6, 2005

___________

Before SMITH, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A grand jury indicted Santiago Valdivia-Perez on two counts: (1) conspiracy

to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture of substance containing a detectable

amount of methamphetamine and cocaine and (2) knowingly using and carrying a

firearm during and in relationship to a drug trafficking crime. A jury convicted

Valdivia-Perez on count one and acquitted him on count two. 

At sentencing, the district court increased Valdivia-Perez's base offense level

for possession of a gun and adjusted his offense level upward for his role in the

offense. The court refused to depart downward and sentenced Valdivia-Perez to life

Appellate Case: 03-3987 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2005 Entry ID: 1911605
1

Because our resolution of this issue results in remand, we need not discuss the

district court's determination by a preponderance of the evidence that Valdivia-Perez

possessed a weapon. The district court may resolve this issue on remand. 

 

-2-

imprisonment. Valdivia-Perez appeals, arguing that the district court erred in

increasing his base offense level for possession of a weapon in furtherance of illegal

activity (a charge to which the jury had acquitted him), and in failing to use the

disparity of his co-conspirators' sentences as a basis for a downward departure. 

Upon review of the sentencing transcript, it is apparent that the court was

clearly concerned with the length of Valdivia-Perez's sentence as calculated under

the Guidelines, when compared with his co-conspirators' much shorter sentences.

The district court acknowledged that if the law were to change, he would likely "take

a hard look" at whether a downward departure was justified, stating "this is about as

much disparity as I've ever seen in a case." In light of the Supreme Court's

pronouncement in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), that the Sentencing

Guidelines are now advisory, and given our recent opinion in United States v. Pirani,

406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), the district court may now have an

opportunity to impose a more favorable sentence. See United States v. RodriguezCeballos, No. 04-3390, 2005 WL 1131672 (8th Cir. May 16, 2005) (remanding for

a third sentencing because although the district court labored under the belief that the

Guidelines were mandatory, along with this court's interpretation of them, the court

is now free to exercise its discretion, reviewing the advisory Guidelines together with

other sentencing goals listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). 

This case is governed by the plain error analysis announced in Pirani because

Valdivia-Perez did not preserve the error associated with mandatory sentencing.

Pirani, 406 F.3d at 549-50. As to the district court's belief that it could not depart

downward, Valdivia-Perez satisfies each of the four elements governing our plain

error review:1

 (1) the district court committed error by applying what was then

Appellate Case: 03-3987 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2005 Entry ID: 1911605
-3-

thought to be mandatory guidelines, (2) according to our Pirani jurisprudence, the

error is plain, or obvious at this time, (3) given the district court's stated desire to

depart from the mandatory guidelines, Valdivia-Perez has carried his burden of

demonstrating a reasonable probability that he might have received a more favorable

sentence under an advisory scheme, and (4) because Valdivia-Perez would spend

additional time in prison as a result of the imposed sentence, the fairness, integrity,

and public reputation of judicial proceedings are seriously affected. Id. at 550-54

(discussing the four-part plain error analysis established in United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993)). 

We therefore vacate Valdivia-Perez's sentence and remand for resentencing.

On remand, the district court should consider all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) in sentencing Valdivia-Perez. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3987 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/06/2005 Entry ID: 1911605