Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02298/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02298-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Antonio Alapizco-Rojas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2298

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Minnesota.

Jose Antonio Alapizco-Rojas, also *

known as Simon Espinoza Lopez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 27, 2004

 Filed: July 22, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges

___________

PER CURIAM.

We issued an initial opinion in this matter on August 12, 2004, summarily

rejecting Mr. Alapizco-Rojas’s claims on appeal and granting appointed counsel

permission to withdraw. We then identified a potentially non-frivolous issue, vacated

our August 12, 2004 opinion, and directed appointed counsel to consult with Mr.

Alapizco-Rojas regarding the possibility of raising claims under Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). 

Subsequently, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Booker,

125 S.Ct 738 (2005), making Blakely applicable to the federal Sentencing Guidelines

Appellate Case: 03-2298 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2005 Entry ID: 1931428 
-2-

and effectively rendering the Guidelines advisory. Also, our court decided United

States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005), explaining the standards for

preservation and review of Booker errors in pending cases. Under Pirani, an

unpreserved Booker error does not warrant reversal unless the defendant can prove

that the district court would have imposed a more favorable sentence had it not

treated the Guidelines as mandatory. Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553.

Applying this authority to Mr. Alapizco-Rojas’s case, we find no preserved

error, review only for plain error, and find no plain error that would warrant relief.

Mr. Alapizco-Rojas pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess and distribute

over 500 grams of methamphetamine. The district court found the applicable

Guidelines range to be 135-168 months and imposed a sentence of 135 months.

Under Pirani, a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range, without more, is

insufficient to demonstrate prejudice and warrant relief. Id. There is nothing else in

the record to suggest that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence had

it not treated the Guidelines as mandatory. 

Regarding the other issues Mr. Alapizco-Rojas raises on appeal, we reinstate

our opinion of August 12, 2004, affirming the district court and granting counsel’s

motion to withdraw. Counsel is again reminded of the requirements of Part V of our

Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan as set forth in our earlier opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2298 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2005 Entry ID: 1931428