Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01762/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01762-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cassandra Plaza
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-1762

________________

United States of America,

Appellant,

v.

Cassandra Plaza, also known as

Casandra Plaza,

 Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

Southern District of Iowa.

________________

Submitted: October 18, 2006

 Filed: December 28, 2006

________________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge. 

 Cassandra Plaza pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. The district court

sentenced Plaza to 12 months and one day of imprisonment. The Government appeals

the sentencing procedure as improper and the sentence as unreasonable. We vacate

Plaza’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 

Appellate Case: 06-1762 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263458
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

From January 1, 2004 to October 22, 2004, Cassandra Plaza, a 20-year-old

woman, participated in an ongoing methamphetamine distribution ring that shipped

methamphetamine from California to be sold in Des Moines, Iowa. Plaza relocated

from California to Des Moines for the purpose of selling the methamphetamine that

the ring delivered to Des Moines. In June 2004, police in Des Moines began an

investigation of Matt Kinseth. On two occasions, they observed Plaza enter Kinseth’s

house with a bag and leave without it. After the second occasion, the police stopped

Plaza for a traffic violation and discovered $19,000 in Plaza’s pocket. They executed

a search warrant at her residence, which she shared with Rene Plaza, her cousin and

co-defendant, and uncovered 2,517.88 grams of methamphetamine and drug

packaging materials.

After Plaza was arrested, she cooperated fully with the police and provided

information about individuals both above and below her in the methamphetamine

distribution chain. The Government found all of her information to be truthful and

attributed four co-defendants’ guilty pleas to Plaza’s cooperation.

On September 28, 2005, Plaza pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to

distribute methamphetamine. In determining her advisory sentencing guidelines

range, the district court found Plaza to be responsible for 2.5 kilograms of actual

methamphetamine and 11.34 kilograms of a mixture containing methamphetamine,

resulting in a base offense level of 38. United States Sentencing Guidelines

§ 2D1.1(c)(1). Plaza’s base offense level was decreased by two levels because she

met the criteria for safety-valve relief pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(9) and 5C1.2

in that she only had one criminal history point, she did not use any violence or

firearms in connection with the methamphetamine conspiracy, no person was

seriously injured or killed in the conspiracy, she was not an organizer or leader of the

Appellate Case: 06-1762 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263458
-3-

conspiracy, and she provided all of the information she knew about the conspiracy to

the Government. Plaza also received a three-level downward adjustment for

acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. These reductions resulted in a total

offense level of 33. With a criminal history category of I, the district court determined

that Plaza’s advisory sentencing guidelines range was 135 to 168 months. The

statutory mandatory minimum sentence was 120 months. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

However, the district court granted Plaza safety-valve relief from the statutory

mandatory minimum pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). 

The Government filed a substantial assistance motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and moved the district court to reduce Plaza’s

sentence by 25 percent. In its opening discussion before sentencing Plaza, the district

court noted that “[t]his [motion] would result in a sentence, if the Court based the

sentence only on the advisory guidelines factor, instead of all the co-equal 3553(a)

factors the Court must consider, of just over 101 months.” Sent. Transcript at 18

(emphases added). The district court, however, neither indicated specifically whether

it granted the Government’s motion for downward departure nor identified

specifically how far down it was actually departing based on Plaza’s cooperation.

While the district court did indicate in the statement of reasons in the judgment that

it granted a § 5K1.1 departure to Plaza, it did not state the extent of the departure nor

any specific reasons that supported its decision to grant the departure. It also did not

reference the motion when imposing Plaza’s ultimate sentence. Sent. Transcript at 22-

23 (“Accordingly, the Court, after considering all of the 3553(a) factors, orders the

defendant . . . to serve a 12 month and one day term of imprisonment.”). 

The district court did consider other factors in imposing the sentence. It

recognized that no firearms or violence were involved in the offense. It also

elaborated on Plaza’s background and characteristics. Plaza was 20 years old at the

time of the offense, this was her first criminal offense, she was single and without

Appellate Case: 06-1762 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263458
-4-

children, she had tried illegal drugs but had no addiction and she graduated from high

school with grades of mostly As and Bs. Furthermore, after Plaza was arrested, her

parents and siblings moved from California to Iowa to provide support. Finally, the

district court concluded that Plaza posed no danger to the community. According to

the district court, she was not able “to perceive the consequences of her actions,” and

there was a “low likelihood [that she would] recidivate given the absence of drug

addictions.” The district court also noted a 2002 U.S. Sentencing Commission survey

that found a majority of judges believed drug punishments were “greater than

appropriate to reflect the seriousness of drug trafficking offenses.” It then stated that

a state court would award a much shorter sentence for this type of offense and that

“imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and

rehabilitation.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a). 

In considering these factors, the district court sentenced Plaza to 12 months and

one day of imprisonment and filed a sentencing order outlining its justifications. This

sentence was lower than the 60 months that Plaza requested, and it amounted to a 123-

month, or 91 percent, reduction from the advisory sentencing guidelines range before

any departure. The Government appeals the sentence as unreasonable and argues that

the procedure used by the district court was improper. 

II. DISCUSSION

 We review a district court’s application of the guidelines de novo. United

States v. Mathijssen, 406 F.3d 496, 498 (8th Cir. 2005). We vacate a sentence

imposed by a district court and remand for resentencing if the sentence “was imposed

. . . as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.” Id. (quoting

18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1)). 

Appellate Case: 06-1762 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263458
1

Because the issues are not ripe and were not briefed by the parties, we express

no opinion as to whether the district court may grant a downward variance below the

statutory mandatory minimum based on the § 3553(a) factors where, as here, the

-5-

A district court must follow the proper procedure when sentencing a defendant

post-Booker. United States v. Ture, 450 F.3d 352, 356 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing United

States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2005)). First, the district court must

“determine the appropriate sentencing range under the Guidelines.” Id. Next, the

district court must “decide if a traditional departure under the Guidelines is

appropriate,” thus creating an advisory guidelines sentencing range. Id. Finally, the

district court must “consider the § 3553(a) factors to determine a sentence.” Id. 

A district court may depart from the sentencing range when the Government

files a motion for substantial assistance pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. United States

v. Peterson, 455 F.3d 834, 837 (8th Cir. 2006). Additionally, the district court may

sentence a defendant below the statutory mandatory minimum when the Government

brings a motion for substantial assistance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). Id. A

district court’s “departure or reduction pursuant to § 5K1.1 or § 3553(e) ‘can be based

only on assistance-related considerations.’” United States v. Saenz, 428 F.3d 1159,

1162 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Pepper, 412 F.3d 995, 998 (8th Cir.

2005)). 

The Government argues that the district court failed to follow the appropriate

sentencing procedure because it did not specifically state which portion of the reduced

sentence was based on the departure factors under § 5K1.1 and § 3553(e) and which

portion was based on the § 3553(a) factors. The procedural requirements dictate that

the district court must decide if the departure is appropriate and determine the

resulting advisory guidelines sentencing range after determining the appropriate

amount of the departure. Only after this step may the district court consider the

§ 3553(a) factors.1

 Ture, 450 F.3d at 356. Without a clear statement by the district

Appellate Case: 06-1762 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263458
district court was allowed to sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum due

to a downward departure motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and due to the safetyvalve provisions, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

-6-

court of its decision to depart, the extent of the departure and the reasons for the

departure, we are unable to conduct the necessary review of the extent of the departure

for reasonableness. See Saenz, 428 F.3d at 1162, 1164-65 (holding a departure

unreasonable after reviewing the district court’s reasons for the extent of the

departure).

In the instant case, the district court did not clearly state at the sentencing

hearing that it was granting the Government’s motion for a downward departure based

on Plaza’s substantial assistance. While the statement of reasons in the judgment

indicates that the district court did decide to grant the motion, we cannot determine

the extent of any departure granted because of the district court’s ambiguous language

stating that the Government’s recommended departure “would result in a sentence, if

the Court based the sentence only on the advisory guidelines factor . . . of just over

101 months.” Sent. Transcript at 18 (emphases added). Additionally, the district

court’s failure to state specifically the reasons for the extent of the substantial

assistance departure prevents us from determining the reasonableness of any

departure. Instead of properly isolating the consideration of the assistance-related

factors to its departure determination, the district court consolidated all of its

considerations in reaching the ultimate sentence of 12 months and one day of

imprisonment. Therefore, we must vacate the sentence. See Peterson, 455 F.3d at

837 (remanding for resentencing “[b]ecause the district court did not specify its

reasons for granting the motions for substantial assistance, apart from other sentencing

considerations”). Because the district court failed to follow the proper sentencing

procedure and we find that a remand is necessary, we need not address the

Government’s remaining arguments.

Appellate Case: 06-1762 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263458
-7-

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. On remand,

the district court should follow the sentencing procedure as outlined in Ture, 450 F.3d

at 356.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1762 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/28/2006 Entry ID: 3263458