Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01196/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01196-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reynaldo Rivera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1196

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Reynaldo Rivera, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 30, 2005

Filed: September 26, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Reynaldo Rivera challenges the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after

Rivera pleaded guilty to a drug charge. Although Rivera provided some assistance

to the government, the government determined that this assistance was not substantial

enough to merit a government motion for reduction of sentence under U.S.S.G.

§ 5K1.1 or 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). Rivera now argues that the district court erred in

sentencing him under a mandatory Guidelines scheme, and that the court could have

Appellate Case: 05-1196 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2005 Entry ID: 1955942
-2-

granted him a reduction for substantial assistance even without the government’s

motion.

At the sentencing hearing, Rivera neither objected to the lack of a sentencing

reduction for substantial assistance, nor raised any objection to his sentence that

would preserve error under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

Accordingly, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d

543, 549, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. July 27, 2005)

(No. 05-5547).

In the circumstances of this case, we see no plain error that would warrant

reversal. Even though it was plain error to treat the Guidelines as mandatory, and

even assuming – without deciding – that the district court was entitled to consider

Rivera’s assistance to the government in fashioning a reasonable sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a), Rivera has not met his burden of showing a reasonable probability

that he would have received a more favorable sentence but for the treatment of the

Guidelines as mandatory. See id. at 552. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1196 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2005 Entry ID: 1955942