Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02735/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02735-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Ramon Palomares-Alcantar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 04-2735

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Juan Ramon Palomares-Alcantar,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa.

 [PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: March 15, 2005

 Filed: May 5, 2005

________________

Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

________________

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

Juan Ramon Palomares-Alcantar pleaded guilty to knowingly transporting

illegal aliens within the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii).

The district court1

 sentenced him to 18 months in prison and two years of supervised

release. Palomares-Alcantar appeals his sentence. For the reasons discussed below,

Appellate Case: 04-2735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2005 Entry ID: 1899457
-2-

we affirm the district court’s Guidelines calculations, but we remand for resentencing

consistent with United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

I.

The following facts were undisputed. Palomares-Alcantar was driving a 1995

Ford Econoline van containing 20 individuals whom he knew to be illegal aliens.

They were traveling from Phoenix, Arizona, to Chicago, Illinois. There were only

seats and seatbelts for Palomares-Alcantar and one passenger; the remaining 19

passengers rode on the floor of the van. The Iowa State Patrol stopped the van on the

morning of March 14, 2004, for speeding on Interstate 80 near Atlantic, Iowa. Some

of the aliens told the police that they had paid between $1,200 and $1,500 to an

unknown alien smuggler–someone other than Palomares-Alcantar–to be transported.

Some facts regarding the van were in dispute. The presentence report

described it as having the rated capacity to carry 15 people, but at sentencing,

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent Martha Trevino described the

van as having the rated capacity to carry seven people. She provided the district court

with seven photographs of the van. One photograph showed a frontal view of the

van, and another photograph showed the van with the doors to the rear passenger

compartment opened. The remaining photographs showed that the van’s tires were

bald, with the tread eroded to the point that the steel belts underneath were visible.

There was no evidence as to whether Palomares-Alcantar knew of the condition of

the tires. The district court examined the photographs and found that it was

“unquestionably not a 15-passenger van,” but that the district court was “going to

disregard the issue of the rating of the van” in making its Guidelines calculations.

The district court made the following Guidelines calculations. PalomaresAlcantar’s base offense level was 12, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG)

§ 2L1.1(a)(2), he received a three-level enhancement because of the number of illegal

aliens transported, see USSG § 2L1.1(b)(2)(A), his offense level was increased to 18

Appellate Case: 04-2735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2005 Entry ID: 1899457
-3-

because he intentionally or recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious

bodily injury to others, see USSG § 2L1.1(b)(5), and he received a three-level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility, see USSG § 3E1.1.

Palomares-Alcantar argued that he was entitled to a three-level reduction

because the offense was not committed for profit, see USSG § 2L1.1(b)(1). He

acknowledged, however, that the applicability of this reduction was moot if the

district court found that he intentionally or recklessly created a substantial risk of

death or serious bodily injury because § 2L1.1(b)(5) established an offense level of

18 with or without the § 2L1.1(b)(1) reduction. Palomares-Alcantar objected to the

application of § 2L1.1(b)(5), arguing that he did not intentionally or recklessly create

a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to others. Finally, he objected to

the Guidelines on the basis of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).

The district court overruled Palomares-Alcantar’s Blakely objection,

concluding that it was bound to apply the Guidelines until the Supreme Court or the

Eighth Circuit declared otherwise. The district court also overruled PalomaresAlcantar’s objection to the application of § 2L1.1(b)(5). The district court concluded

that the presence of 21 people in the van, regardless of whether it was designed to

carry seven or 15 people, “was far in excess of any ability for the safety design of the

van to provide safe transportation under the best of circumstances.” The

overcrowding of the van was exacerbated, the district court continued, by the absence

of seats or seatbelts for the 19 passengers who were riding on the floor of the van, and

by the baldness of the van’s tires. Under these conditions, driving the van from

Phoenix at interstate highway speeds intentionally or recklessly created a substantial

risk of death or serious bodily injury to the passengers in the van, the district court

concluded. Because § 2L1.1(b)(5) applied to Palomares-Alcantar’s conduct, the

district court concluded, there was no need to rule on whether the offense was

committed for profit within the meaning of USSG § 2L1.1(b)(1).

Appellate Case: 04-2735 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2005 Entry ID: 1899457
-4-

Based on a total offense level of 15 and a Category I criminal history,

Palomares-Alcantar’s Guidelines imprisonment range was 18-24 months. The district

court sentenced him to 18 months in prison and two years of supervised release. Had

the district court adopted the Guidelines calculations urged by Palomares-Alcantar,

his total offense level would have been 12, and his Guidelines imprisonment range

would have been 10-16 months.

Palomares-Alcantar appeals, arguing that the district court erred by finding that

he intentionally or recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily

injury; if so, he is entitled to the § 2L1.1(b)(1) reduction because he did not commit

the offense for profit; and, in any event, his sentence violates Blakely and Booker.

II.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that PalomaresAlcantar intentionally or recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious

bodily injury to others, and that the district court properly applied § 2L1.1(b)(5). See

United States v. Flores-Flores, 356 F.3d 861, 862-63 (8th Cir. 2004) (affirming the

application of § 2L1.1(b)(5) where the defendant was transporting 11 illegal aliens

from Arizona to Michigan in a van that had only four seats and seatbelts, requiring

eight of the aliens to ride on the floor); United States v. Rio-Baena, 247 F.3d 722, 723

(8th Cir. 2001) (affirming the application of § 2L1.1(b)(5) where the defendant was

transporting 21 illegal aliens from Phoenix to Chicago in a van that had no seats or

seatbelts for them); United States v. Ortiz, 242 F.3d 1078, 1078-79 (8th Cir. 2001)

(affirming the application of § 2L1.1(b)(5) where the defendant was transporting 23

illegal aliens in a van equipped with seats and seatbelts for 14 passengers).

Because § 2L1.1(b)(5) was correctly applied, it is irrelevant (as PalomaresAlcantar acknowledges) whether he committed the offense for profit because his

offense level would remain 18 with or without a § 2L1.1(b)(1) reduction.

Appellate Case: 04-2735 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/05/2005 Entry ID: 1899457
-5-

Finally, the government concedes error under Booker. Although the district

court’s Guidelines calculations were correct, the district court (understandably)

treated the Guidelines as mandatory. Having preserved a timely Blakely objection

below, Palomares-Alcantar is entitled to a resentencing hearing at which the district

court treats the Guidelines as advisory and imposes a sentence based on its

consideration of all the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, we

remand this case to the district court for resentencing consistent with Booker, 125 S.

Ct. at 764-65, 769.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2735 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/05/2005 Entry ID: 1899457