Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-04070/USCOURTS-ca10-15-04070-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ruben Serrato
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

RUBEN SERRATO, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-4070 

(D.C. No. 2:06-CR-00851-TS-1) 

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

In 2008, Ruben Serrato pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 

a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 

841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). The district court granted a three-year downward 

variance and sentenced him to 199 months of imprisonment, followed by 60 months 

of supervised release. Despite an appeal waiver in his plea agreement, Serrato 

appealed but later moved to dismiss his appeal. See United States v. Serrato, 336 Fed. 

Appx. 846 (10th Cir. 2009). On April 15, 2015, based on Amendment 782 to the 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

January 28, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-4070 Document: 01019562199 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Page: 1 
2 

Sentencing Guidelines, the district court granted a joint motion to reduce Serrato’s 

sentence to 188 months of imprisonment, the low end of his newly applicable 

advisory sentencing range. On May 4, 2015, Serrato timely filed his notice of appeal. 

For this appeal, Serrato’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967), stating that no reasonable grounds for appeal exist. 

Even so, the brief attempts an argument in Serrato’s favor. We invited Serrato to 

respond, but he has not. We conclude that any potential grounds for appeal would be 

frivolous. We grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. 

BACKGROUND 

 In 2006, the Salt Lake City District Office of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) received information from a confidential informant regarding 

a local drug-trafficking organization’s heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine 

distribution network. The DEA began an undercover operation, which revealed that 

Serrato supplied the organization’s methamphetamine. Though the organization itself 

was involved in other drugs, Serrato exclusively supplied methamphetamine. After an 

extensive undercover investigation, a grand jury indicted Serrato on December 6, 

2006, charging him with eight counts for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, 

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and firearms charges. 

Ultimately, Serrato pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A), in 

exchange for dismissal of the other seven counts. 

Appellate Case: 15-4070 Document: 01019562199 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Page: 2 
3 

The presentence investigation report calculated Serrato’s sentencing-guideline 

range as 235 to 293 months. The probation office determined this range based on 

Serrato’s total offense level of 33, combined with his criminal history category of VI. 

After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court varied 

downward by 36 months, sentencing Serrato to 199 months of imprisonment. 

In 2009, despite an appeal waiver in his plea agreement, Serrato appealed his 

conviction and sentence but later voluntarily dismissed it. See Serrato, 336 Fed. 

Appx. at 846. More than five years later, Serrato filed a pro se motion seeking a twolevel reduction in his offense level under the United States Sentencing Commission’s 

Amendment 782, which amended the Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Under the Amendment, Serrato’s offense level 

dropped to 31, which reduced his advisory Guideline range from 235 to 293 months 

to 188 to 235 months. In response, on April 3, 2015, Serrato’s Assistant Federal 

Public Defender and the Assistant United States Attorney jointly moved to reduce 

Serrato’s sentence to 188 months. The court granted the motion and reduced 

Serrato’s sentence accordingly. As Serrato’s counsel explained in the Anders brief, 

“[b]ecause Mr. Serrato had originally received a sentence 36 months below the 

original guideline range, the requested reduction to the low end of the new guideline 

resulted in a reduction which is substantially less than what a 2-level reduction would 

otherwise entail.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 3. 

Appellate Case: 15-4070 Document: 01019562199 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Page: 3 
4 

DISCUSSION 

Because defense counsel has submitted an Anders brief, our task is to “conduct 

a full examination of the record to determine whether defendant’s claims are wholly 

frivolous.” United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). “Frivolous means lacking a legal basis or legal merit; not 

serious; not reasonably purposeful.” United States v. Lain, 640 F.3d 1134, 1137 (10th 

Cir. 2011). 

Defense counsel raises only one possible issue for our consideration: whether 

the district court’s failure to reduce Serrato’s sentence below the post-Amendment 

782 sentencing range violates Serrato’s right to a jury trial. Specifically, counsel 

suggests that “[a]lthough the amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines bars 

modification of a sentence below the newly applicable guideline range during 

retroactive application proceedings, judges constitutionally must retain discretion to 

sentence defendants based on individual circumstances.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 

4. Relying on the principle that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to 

have a jury decide any issue “essential to punishment” announced in United States v. 

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 223 (2005), defense counsel submits that disallowing the 

district court from reducing Serrato’s sentence below the reduced range resulting 

from Amendment 782 somehow might violate Serrato’s right to have a jury 

determine his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The United States Supreme Court has addressed—and disposed of—this issue 

in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). In Dillon, the Court held that Booker

Appellate Case: 15-4070 Document: 01019562199 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Page: 4 
5 

does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) resentencing proceedings such as this. Dillon, 560 

U.S. at 828 (“[P]roceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not implicate the Sixth 

Amendment right to have essential facts found by a jury beyond a reasonable 

doubt.”). As the Court explained, “[b]ecause § 3582(c)(2) proceedings give judges no 

more than . . . circumscribed discretion, ‘[t]here is no encroachment here by the judge 

upon facts historically found by the jury, nor any threat to the jury’s domain as a 

bulwark at trial between the State and the accused.’” Id. at 829 (second alteration in 

original) (quoting Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 168 (2009)). Thus, like Dillon, 

Serrato’s “Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the District Court’s 

adherence to the instruction in § 1B1.10 to consider a reduction only within the 

amendment Guidelines range.” Id. 

CONCLUSION 

Because Serrato’s appeal presents only a frivolous issue, we grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-4070 Document: 01019562199 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Page: 5