Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03203/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03203-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isidro Plancarte-Vazquez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

District of Iowa, sitting by designation in the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3203

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Isidro Plancarte-Vazquez, also * 

known as Isidro Plancarte-Rueda, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 27, 2007

Filed: October 23, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal following remand for resentencing, Isidro Plancarte-Vazquez

challenges the sentence of 168 months in prison that the district court1

 imposed upon

his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute 15,000 grams or more of methamphetamine

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846, and to possessing with

intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Plancarte-Vazquez argues that the district court erred by

Appellate Case: 06-3203 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Entry ID: 3364764
-2-

attributing 30,000 kilograms of marijuana equivalent to him on the basis of

inconsistent and unreliable witness testimony, and that the court should have imposed

a lower sentence based on its finding that older family members controlled and

directed Plancarte-Vazquez. 

We conclude that the district court’s drug-quantity calculation is supported by

the record and is not clearly erroneous. We also conclude that the ultimate sentence

was not unreasonable with regard to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court

methodically considered the statutory factors, and because the sentence was within the

advisory guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. See Rita v. United States,

127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir.

2005).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3203 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2007 Entry ID: 3364764