Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03350/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03350-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joab J. Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

04-3350

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the District of

* Nebraska.

Joab J. Garcia, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2005

 Filed: August 2, 2005 

___________

Before 

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Joab J. Garcia pled guilty to a charge of possession with intent to distribute

over fifty grams of methamphetamine. At sentencing, the district court found a base

offense level of twenty-six, adjusted downward two levels for safety-valve relief, and

adjusted downward three more levels for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a

total offense level of twenty-one. Mr. Garcia’s criminal history was category one

resulting in a Guidelines range of thirty-seven to forty-six months. The district court

imposed a thirty-seven month, bottom-of-the-range sentence. Because Mr. Garcia

Appellate Case: 04-3350 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2005 Entry ID: 1935102
-2-

was eligible for safety-valve relief, the mandatory sixty-month statutory minimum did

not apply.

Sentencing took place after the Supreme Court decided Blakely v. Washington,

124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), but before it decided United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738

(2005). Mr. Garcia did not raise any Blakely-related challenges at sentencing.

Because he raises the Blakely/Booker issue for the first time on appeal, we review

only for plain error. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 552 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Before we may exercise our discretion to grant relief under Fed. R. Crim. Pro.

52(b), we must find (1) error that is (2) plain and that is (3) prejudicial, i.e., that

substantially affects the defendant’s rights. Pirani, 406 F.3d at 550. Even if a

defendant makes this showing, we may only grant relief if “the error seriously affects

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted). Here the district court applied the Guidelines as mandatory

and therefore, understandably, committed error. We have already held that such an

error is plain. United States v. Hill, 410 F.3d 468, 473 (2005). We can only find that

it affects the defendant’s substantial rights, however, if the defendant shows a

reasonable probability that the sentencing court would have applied a lesser sentence

had it not treated the Guidelines as mandatory. 

We have held that a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range, standing

alone, is insufficient to show prejudice. Pirani, 406 F.3d 553. Here, the defendant

suggests that the record contains additional indicia of the district court’s desire to

grant a lesser sentence. In particular, he points to the fact that the district court

expressly recommended that he appeal. He argues that this “can only be taken as an

indication that the sentence might be different but for the guidelines.” We disagree.

The district court actually stated, “In light of the Supreme Court’s decision upcoming

I suspect it would be a good idea to appeal this case.” At a minimum, this statement

shows that the district court noted for the defendant’s benefit that an upcoming

Appellate Case: 04-3350 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2005 Entry ID: 1935102
-3-

Supreme Court opinion was relevant to his appeal. At most, it shows that the district

court recognized uncertainty in the state of the law and anticipated that the sentencing

might involve error. This statement does not suggest the district court would have

granted a more favorable sentence under an advisory regime. 

We also note that other comments by the judge in this case are routine

statements made by most courts at sentencing hearings to ensure that all issues are

addressed and that defendants know their rights. For example, the court inquired as

to the status of any substantial assistance from the defendant and a possible Rule 35

motion for relief by the government. The court also advised the defendant of the oneyear deadline on the filing of a Rule 35 motion and advised the defendant to remain

in contact with his attorney. We view these statements as prudent recommendations

and inquiries that many courts make at sentencing. Because we find that the court’s

statements do not support a finding of prejudice, and because the record contains

nothing beyond a bottom-of-the-range sentence to suggest prejudice, Pirani forecloses

any grant of relief.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge, with whom BYE, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring.

I adhere to the view stated by Judge Bye in Pirani, that defendants who did not

properly preserve their Booker claims in the district court are nonetheless generally

entitled to resentencing under a constitutional regime. See United States v. Pirani,

406 F.3d 543, 562-67 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (Bye, J., dissenting). Because a

majority of our court has held to the contrary, however, I concur.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 04-3350 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/02/2005 Entry ID: 1935102