Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01451/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01451-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elizabeth Ortiz
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1451

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Elizabeth S. Ortiz, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 18, 2007

 Filed: October 26, 2007

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth Ortiz appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after she pled

guilty–without the benefit of a plea agreement–to one count of possession with intent

to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(B). Ortiz qualified for the "safety valve" under § 5C1.2 of the U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines due to the assistance she provided the police and her lack of criminal

history. However, she was assessed a two-level enhancement under § 3C1.1 of the

Guidelines for obstruction of justice because she absconded from supervision while

Appellate Case: 07-1451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2007 Entry ID: 3366238
-2-

on pretrial release for approximately five years. Ortiz's advisory Guidelines range for

her offense and criminal history was forty-six to fifty-seven months. 

During her sentencing hearing, Ortiz requested a sentence below the advisory

Guidelines range. She argued the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice

should not apply and the circumstances of her offense, personal history and

characteristics justified a variance. The district court declined to grant Ortiz a

variance and sentenced her to forty-six months, the bottom of the Guidelines range.

On appeal, Ortiz argues the district court erred when it concluded it was required to

consider the Guidelines as presumptively reasonable. She claims the meaning and

import of the other statutory considerations enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) were

undermined by the court's belief the Guidelines are presumptively reasonable. 

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant

Ortiz a variance from the advisory Guidelines. See United States v. Yahnke, 395 F.3d

823, 826 (8th Cir. 2005) (equating a sentence that is "reasonable" with a sentence that

is "not an abuse of discretion"); United States v. Thornberg, 326 F.3d 1023, 1026 &

n.4. (8th Cir. 2003) (indicating a district court's determination that a sentence is

reasonable is reviewed for abuse of discretion). The district court noted – not

improperly – the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. It then, as the law

requires, carefully considered the § 3553 (a) factors and decided a sentence of fortysix months was appropriate. The law permits this court to "presume a sentence

imposed within a properly calculated United States Sentencing Guidelines range is a

reasonable sentence." United States v. Rita, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2459 (2007); see also

United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 716 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding a sentence within

the guidelines range is presumptively reasonable). Nothing in the record suggests the

district court based its sentence on an improper or irrelevant factor or neglected to

consider a relevant factor. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.

2005). 

We affirm the sentence. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2007 Entry ID: 3366238