Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03740/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03740-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Humberto Michel-Galaviz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3740

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court of the Northern

* District of Iowa

Manuel Humberto Michel-Galaviz, *

*

Appellant, *

*

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2005

Filed: July 28, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and BENTON Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Manuel Humberto Michel-Galaviz was indicted for possession with intent to

distribute 2,609.1 grams of a methamphetamine mixture containing 1,519.817 grams

of meth, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Galaviz moved to strike surplusage from the indictment, but the district court denied

his motion. He then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal

the denial of the motion, and the constitutionality of the United States Sentencing

Guidelines. The district court sentenced Galaviz to 168 months imprisonment and

five years supervised release. Galaviz appeals. Jurisdiction being proper under 28

Appellate Case: 04-3740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2005 Entry ID: 1933804
-2-

U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for

resentencing.

I.

Galaviz argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to strike

surplusage from the indictment. He notes that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) refers

only to "50 grams or more of methamphetamine" and "500 grams or more of a

mixture of substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine."

Therefore, he reasons that the specific quantity of drugs – in this case 2,609.1 grams

of meth mixture, containing 1,519.817 grams of meth – should be stricken as

surplusage.

This court reviews for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to strike

surplusage from an indictment. See United States v. Figueroa, 900 F.2d 1211, 1218

(8th Cir. 1990) cert. denied, 496 U.S. 942 (1990). "A motion to strike surplusage

from an indictment . . . should be granted only where it is clear that the allegations

contained therein are not relevant to the charge made or contain inflammatory and

prejudicial matter." Dranow v. United States, 307 F.2d 545, 558 (8th Cir. 1962).

Here, the amount of meth alleged in the indictment is relevant to a violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841, which prohibits the unlawful act of possession with the intent to

distribute. The quantity of drugs is relevant to proving intent to distribute. United

States v. Shubel, 912 F.2d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 1990). 

The amount of meth alleged is neither inflammatory nor prejudicial. The

quantity the government intends to prove is not unfairly inflammatory, or unfairly

prejudicial. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying the

motion to strike the quantities from the indictment.

Appellate Case: 04-3740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2005 Entry ID: 1933804
-3-

Galaviz finally argues that even if the district court correctly denied the motion,

it erred in refusing his plea to the threshold amounts in § 841 (b)(1)(A)(viii) – which

could authorize a lesser sentence. To the contrary, a district court has "broad

discretion" in deciding to accept or reject a guilty plea. See United States v.

Bettelyoun, 503 F.2d 1333, 1336 (8th Cir. 1974). A defendant has no absolute right

to plead guilty to a charge other than that in the indictment. See United States v.

Gray, 448 F.2d 164, 167-68 (9th Cir. 1971) cert. denied, 405 U.S. 926 (1972); cf.

Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705, 731 (1962). In this case, the amount alleged

"serves a valid and useful purpose in that it gives notice to the defendant from the

start that the government intends to seek the enhanced sentence if the defendant is

convicted." See United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101, 1105 (8th Cir. 1996) cert.

denied, 519 U.S. 884 (1996); United States v. Washington, 992 F.2d 785, 787 (8th

Cir. 1993) cert. denied, 510 U.S. 936 (1993). The district court did not abuse its

broad discretion in refusing Galaviz's attempted plea.

II.

Galaviz asserts that the sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional under

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). In United States v. Booker, __ U.S.

__, 125 S.Ct. 738, 757 (2005), the Supreme Court held that mandatory application of

the guidelines violates the Sixth Amendment principles articulated in Blakely.

District courts must consult the guidelines in an advisory nature, and take them into

account when sentencing. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 757-67. Booker also instructs that

"in cases not involving a Sixth Amendment violation, whether resentencing is

warranted may depend upon the application of the harmless-error doctrine." Id. at

769. 

In this case, there is no Sixth Amendment violation resulting from judge-found

facts. Id. at 749. An error (understandably) resulted from use of the mandatory

federal sentencing guidelines, as opposed to the Booker advisory system. See United

Appellate Case: 04-3740 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/28/2005 Entry ID: 1933804
1

 As in Haidley, this court need not resolve whether the burden is beyond a

"grave doubt" or a "reasonable doubt." 400 F.3d at 644.

-4-

States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642, 644 (8th Cir. 2005). The government bears the

burden of proving that the district court's mandatory application of the guidelines did

not affect Galaviz's substantial rights and is therefore harmless error. See id.

The government cannot meet that burden. The district court sentenced Galaviz

to 168 months imprisonment, assuming the guidelines were mandatory. However,

the court issued an alternative sentence of 120 months imprisonment, "[i]f the United

States Sentencing Guidelines are found unconstitutional." Before stating this

alternative sentence, the court consulted 18 U.S.C. § 3553(1)-(7), thus following

Booker as to the alternative sentence. The record indicates – beyond either a grave

or a reasonable doubt1

 – that Galaviz would not have been sentenced the same under

the Booker advisory system. This court vacates Galaviz's sentence and remands for

resentencing.

This district court's judgment is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and the case

remanded for resentencing.

________________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3740 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/28/2005 Entry ID: 1933804