Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02563/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02563-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Freddie Arroyo-Santiago
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

Appellant admitted during his presentence interview that his true name is Raul

Morales-Zendejas. 

2

 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2563

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa. 

Freddie Arroyo-Santiago, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 13, 2006

Filed: March 16, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM. 

A jury convicted Freddie Arroyo-Santiago1

 of conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a public playground, and the district court2

sentenced him to 151 months. Arroyo-Santiago appeals, arguing that the district court

Appellate Case: 05-2563 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2006 Entry ID: 2021312
-2-

erred by enhancing his sentence for obstruction of justice and denying his request for

a sentence reduction for minor or minimal participation in the offense. We affirm.

At trial evidence was presented that Arroyo-Santiago was involved in two

controlled methamphetamine purchases arranged by undercover officers. ArroyoSantiago testified that he was "not involved", that he was not in "that type of

business", and that "all [the witnesses] have said is not true." The jury convicted

Arroyo-Santiago of violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(viii), 846, and

860(a). At the sentencing hearing on May 27, 2005, the court added a two level

enhancement for obstruction of justice based on his false testimony at trial and

declined to reduce his sentence based on mitigating role and sentenced ArroyoSantiago at the low end of the guideline range of 151 to 188 months.

Arroyo-Santiago argues that perjury is a separate crime that should have been

proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005), it is clear that sentencing facts do not need to be found by a jury because

judicial factfinding in an advisory guideline regime does not implicate the Sixth

Amendment. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 233. Consequently, a district court may make

findings to support an enhancement provided that it does so with the "understanding

that the guidelines are to be applied in advisory fashion." See United States v. Morell,

429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005). The district court acknowledged that the

guidelines are advisory and explicitly found that Arroyo-Santiago committed perjury

at trial, and its finding is supported by the record. See United States v. Denton, 434

F.3d 1104, 1114 (8th Cir. 2006).

Arroyo-Santiago further asserts that the court erred in denying him a mitigating

role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. A defendant is entitled to such a reduction

only if he played a minimal or at most minor role. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Since there

was evidence that Arroyo-Santiago was an active player in both drug transactions and

was deeply involved in the conspiracy, the district court did not err by not granting a

Appellate Case: 05-2563 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2006 Entry ID: 2021312
-3-

mitigating role reduction. See United States v. Jones, 145 F.3d 959, 963 (8th Cir.

1998). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2563 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2006 Entry ID: 2021312