Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03873/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03873-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Luis Padilla
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3873

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa. 

Jose Luis Padilla, * 

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 4, 2004

Filed: May 24, 2005

___________

Before BYE, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Luis Padilla pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute, and possession with

intent to distribute, more than 500 grams of a substance containing

methamphetamine. A presentence investigation report (“PSR”) prepared by the

United States Probation Office recommended a base offense level of 38, based on a

drug quantity of 22.68 kilograms of methamphetamine mixture, USSG § 2D1.1(c)(1),

and a two-level adjustment for Padilla’s role in the offense, based on his supervision

of two co-conspirators. USSG § 3B1.1(c). Over Padilla’s objection to the sufficiency

Appellate Case: 03-3873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906261
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge of the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

of the evidence on role in the offense, the district court1

 adopted the recommendations

of the PSR, and Padilla was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment. 

Padilla does not challenge the district court’s guideline computations based on

sufficiency of the evidence, but he appeals the adjustment for role in the offense and

the finding of drug quantity on constitutional grounds. For the first time on appeal,

he cites Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), for the proposition that the

district court should not have relied on findings of drug quantity or role in the offense

because these matters were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He also moves for

new counsel. In a pro se supplemental brief, which he has tendered along with a

motion to file the brief, Padilla further argues that his sentence should be vacated in

light of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), because the drug quantity and

role adjustment were neither submitted to a jury nor admitted by him.

In light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005), we agree with

Padilla that the district court’s application of mandatory sentencing guidelines,

combined with its findings concerning drug quantity and role in the offense, was

contrary to the Sixth Amendment as applied in Booker. Padilla did not raise a Sixth

Amendment objection in the district court, however, and we thus review his sentence

under the plain error standard. United States v. Pirani, No. 03-2871, slip op. at 11

(8th Cir. April 29, 2005) (en banc). We do not believe, based on the record as a

whole, that there is a “reasonable probability” that Padilla would have received a

more favorable sentence if the district court had applied the advisory guideline regime

announced in Booker. Although Padilla received a sentence at the low end of the

applicable guideline range, that alone is insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable

probability. See Pirani, No. 03-2871, slip op. at 12. We do not find an indication in

the record that the court was inclined to impose a shorter term of imprisonment or that

Appellate Case: 03-3873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906261
-3-

a reduced sentence under the advisory guideline regime is reasonably probable under

the circumstances. “‘[W]here the effect of the error on the result in the district court

is uncertain or indeterminate – where we would have to speculate – the appellant has

not met his burden of showing a reasonable probability that the result would have

been different but for the error.’” Id. at 13 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 398

F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th Cir. 2005)). 

Padilla’s motion to file a pro se brief is granted, and Padilla’s renewed motion

for appointment of different counsel is denied. The judgment of the district court is

affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3873 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906261