Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02872/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02872-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike R. Gutierrez
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. 06-2872

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Mike R. Gutierrez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 4, 2008

Filed: April 9, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mike R. Gutierrez was found guilty by a jury of conspiring to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute between 50 and 500 grams of methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), 846. He appeals the 180-month prison

sentence the district court1

 imposed after this court vacated his sentence and remanded

for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Counsel

has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that the court’s drug-quantity finding violated the Sixth Amendment,

Appellate Case: 06-2872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2008 Entry ID: 3421886
-2-

and that his sentence is unreasonable. Gutierrez raises a multitude of arguments in his

pro se supplemental brief.

To begin, we conclude that there was no Booker error in the district court’s

drug-quantity finding, because the court did not view the Guidelines as mandatory.

See Booker, 543 U.S. at 233-37, 245, 258-59 (Sixth Amendment problem resulting

from mandatory nature of Guidelines remedied by making Guidelines advisory);

United States v. Gutierrez, 437 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 2006) (judicial fact finding is

permitted under advisory Guidelines). We also conclude that the court did not abuse

its discretion in sentencing Gutierrez below the recalculated advisory Guidelines range

after appropriately considering the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97 (2007) (appellate court must review

sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard regardless whether sentence imposed is

inside or outside Guidelines range); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-03

(8th Cir. 2005) (once sentencing court determines appropriate Guidelines range, it

must then consider all other § 3553(a) factors to determine whether to impose

Guidelines sentence).

As to the pro se arguments, we decline to consider Gutierrez’s claims of

prosecutorial misconduct, see United States v. Thompson, 335 F.3d 782, 784-85 (8th

Cir. 2003) (if party could have raised issue in prior appeal but did not, court later

hearing same case need not consider matter); his claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel are not properly raised in this direct criminal appeal, see United States v.

Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003); and his argument that the district court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his crime is foreclosed by case law, see United

States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996) (Congress may regulate both interstate

and intrastate drug trafficking under Commerce Clause).

Finally, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

Appellate Case: 06-2872 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2008 Entry ID: 3421886
-3-

judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel

inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for

certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2872 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/09/2008 Entry ID: 3421886