Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02282/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02282-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donaciano Rodriguez-Mercado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2282

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Donaciano Rodriguez-Mercado, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 7, 2005 

Filed: June 17, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donaciano Rodriguez-Mercado (Rodriguez) appeals the sentence the district

court1

 imposed following his guilty plea to illegally reentering the United States after

having been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Rodriguez’s counsel initially moved to withdraw and filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In two subsequently filed

supplemental briefs, counsel argues (1) Rodriguez’s sentence violates the Sixth

Amendment, in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because the

Appellate Case: 04-2282 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2005 Entry ID: 1917045
-2-

district court made findings regarding the existence and nature of his prior conviction,

thereby enhancing his sentence; and (2) Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254

(2005), implicitly overruled Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-

27 (1998).

Rodriguez’s Sixth Amendment argument was not raised below, and there is no

plain error, because Booker does not require a jury to find the fact of a prior

conviction. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756; cf. United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d

982, 984 (8th Cir. 2005) (rejecting argument that nature of prior conviction is to be

treated differently from fact of prior conviction; once sentencing court determines

prior conviction exists, it is legal question for court whether crime meets “crime of

violence” definition of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2). Also, we recently held Booker and

Shepard did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Patterson, No. 04-

1178, 2005 WL 1123555, at *2 (8th Cir. May 13, 2005).

In the Anders brief, counsel raises as issues (1) whether the district court

afforded Rodriguez an opportunity to dismiss appointed counsel and retain new

counsel, and (2) whether the court properly conducted the plea and sentencing

hearings. These arguments fail. First, the motion transcript shows that the court gave

Rodriguez the opportunity to hire new counsel. Second, any omissions in the plea

colloquy did not affect Rodriguez’s substantial rights. See United States v.

Dominguez Benitez, 124 S. Ct. 2333, 2340 (2004); United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S.

55, 58-59 (2002). 

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Thus, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2282 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2005 Entry ID: 1917045