Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04260/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04260-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Diego Cazares-Gonzales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4260

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Missouri.

Juan Diego Cazares-Gonzales, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 17, 2006

 Filed: May 22, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Diego Cazares-Gonzales pled guilty to illegally reentering the United

States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court1

 sentenced him to 46

months imprisonment and 24 months of supervised release. Cazares-Gonzales appeals

his sentence, arguing that the district court erroneously treated the guidelines as

mandatory and that it imposed an unreasonable sentence. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-4260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2006 Entry ID: 2047182
-2-

Cazares-Gonzales was born in Guadalajara, Mexico in 1981. He was brought

into the United States when he was an infant and was granted lawful permanent

resident status in 1991. In January 2002 he was convicted in Riverside California of

inflicting corporal injury upon a spouse and was deported to Mexico in November

2003. In April 2005 he was found in St. Charles, Missouri and charged with

reentering the United States unlawfully in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

He pled guilty in July 2005. The district court determined that the defendant

had a base offense level of eight points. It then added sixteen points for his prior

conviction for a crime of violence and subtracted three points for his acceptance of

responsibility, yielding a total offense level of 21. The court found Cazares-Gonzales

had a criminal history category of III based on his January 2002 conviction. With an

offense level of twenty one points and a criminal history category III, the defendant

had a guideline sentencing range of 46 to 57 months. He argued that a guideline

sentence would result in unwarranted disparity in sentencing compared to the fast

track program in other jurisdictions and that the sentencing range calculated by the

court resulted from "double counting" his prior conviction for both his criminal

history and his base level offense, resulting in an unreasonable sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a). Cazares-Gonzales requested a downward departure based on his

cultural assimilation, but the district court denied his request and sentenced him to 46

months at the bottom of the guideline range. 

Cazares-Gonzales complains that the district court erred by treating the

guidelines as mandatory under the mistaken belief that it could not depart downward

based on his cultural assimilation. The district court has the discretion to depart

downward from the advisory guideline range, USSG § 5K2.0, and we will not reverse

its discretionary denial of a motion to depart downward where we determine that the

district court was aware that it had the authority to depart but declined to do so. United

States v. Vasquez, 433 F.3d 666, 670 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Andreano, 417

F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Riza, 267 F.3d 757, 758 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 05-4260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2006 Entry ID: 2047182
-3-

2001). We presume that the district court is aware of its authority, Riza, 267 F.3d at

759, and have inferred awareness where defense counsel was allowed to argue for a

departure from the guideline range. United States v. Sypolt, 346 F.3d 838, 841 (8th

Cir. 2003). In this case the district court received a sentencing memorandum from the

defendant which requested a downward departure based on cultural assimilation,

reviewed it prior to the sentencing hearing, and heard further arguments at the hearing.

In addition after hearing defense counsel's argument, the court inquired of the

government whether it thought a guideline sentence should be imposed "as opposed

to something less." After reviewing the sentencing hearing transcript, we conclude

that the district court was aware of its authority to grant a downward departure and its

refusal to grant the requested departure was not an abuse of its discretion.

Cazares-Gonzales contends that the district court did not recognize its authority

to consider the § 3553(a) factors and effectively treated the guidelines as mandatory,

resulting in an unreasonable sentence. At sentencing, the district court noted that it

was aware of the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), holding the guidelines to be advisory. The district court followed Booker,

noted that the guidelines are advisory, and demonstrated its consideration of a

sentence below the advisory guideline range by asking counsel whether it should

impose "something less" than a guideline sentence. The defendant's sentencing

memorandum argued for a lesser sentence based on the § 3553(a) factors, and

Cazares-Gonzales acknowledges that the court reviewed his memorandum. We

conclude from the record that the court did not treat the guidelines as mandatory, that

it properly considered the § 3553(a) factors in fashioning a reasonable sentence, and

that there was no improper "double counting.". 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4260 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/22/2006 Entry ID: 2047182