Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02557/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02557-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rigoberto Islas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2557

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Rigoberto Islas, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Oscar, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 26, 2005

Filed: August 12, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On March 26, 2004, Rigoberto Islas pled guilty to Count I of a superseding

indictment alleging that between January 1, 2000, and on or about November 21,

2003, Islas knowingly conspired to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500

grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court1

 sentenced Islas to 235

months' imprisonment and five years supervised release. Islas appeals his sentence,

Appellate Case: 04-2557 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2005 Entry ID: 1939840
2

The district court sentenced Islas prior to the Supreme Court's decision in

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) and we now view his claims in that

light.

3

Regardless, based upon the evidence presented at sentencing, there was no

error in the district court's conclusion that Islas should receive the three-level

adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b).

-2-

arguing that under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004),2

 the federal

sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional and that because his enhancement was

based upon judge-found facts, we should remand this matter for resentencing,

avoiding all enhancing provisions not admitted by Islas or proven to a jury beyond

a reasonable doubt. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

Prior to sentencing, Islas challenged the government's proposed upward

adjustment in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) based upon Islas' role in the

offense. At sentencing, the district court credited the stipulated testimony of Gary

Olsen who substantiated the offense conduct contained in the PSR. According to that

testimony, the district court determined that more than five people were involved in

the conspiracy, that it was an extensive conspiracy involving substantial amounts of

methamphetamine and that Islas directed and supervised Olsen and others within the

conspiracy. Accordingly, the district court began with a base offense level of thirtyeight, which was adjusted upward three levels under section 3B1.1 for Islas'

managerial role, and then adjusted downward three levels for his acceptance of

responsibility, resulting in an offense level of thirty-eight. The sentencing range was

235 to 293 months. The district court sentenced Islas at the bottom of the range. 

On appeal, Islas does not challenge the facts underlying the district court's

application of the sentencing enhancement,3

 but rather the district court's

determination of those facts rather than presenting them to a jury. Because Islas

raises this argument for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. United

Appellate Case: 04-2557 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2005 Entry ID: 1939840
-3-

States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549-50 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We must consider

whether the district court's application of the enhancement and its use of the

guidelines themselves as mandatory, rather than advisory, constitute plain error. It

is Islas' burden to establish that the district court's use of the guidelines in sentencing

affected his substantial rights. Id. at 550. That is, he must show that there is a

reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a more favorable

sentence under the advisory guidelines regime mandated by Booker. Id. at 553. Islas

is unable to meet this burden. Although the district court sentenced Islas at the

bottom of the applicable sentencing guidelines range, that alone is not enough to

make the required showing. Id. There is no other evidence in the record to indicate

any reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a lesser

sentence had it applied the guidelines in an advisory fashion. In addition, Islas'

sentence, which resulted from a correct application of the guidelines and fell within

the calculated sentencing range, was reasonable in light of the sentencing factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765-66. Accordingly, we

affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2557 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/12/2005 Entry ID: 1939840