Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02837/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02837-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Eduardo Pablo-Lepe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

for the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2837

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Jorge Eduardo Pablo-Lepe, also known *

as Jorge Lopez Cortez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 17, 2005

Filed: March 31, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Jorge Pablo-Lepe challenges the sentence the

district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense. He argues

that (1) the district court erred in holding the federal Sentencing Guidelines

unconstitutional; and (2) even if the Guidelines are unconstitutional, the court erred

by imposing a discretionary sentence that was unguided by the applicable Guidelines

range.

Appellate Case: 04-2837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2005 Entry ID: 1885839 
-2-

These arguments fail. First, during the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme

Court held in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 765-67 (2005), that the federal

Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional insofar as they are mandatory, and thus

they are merely advisory; and that appellate courts should review post-Booker

sentences for reasonableness. Second, we find that the sentence imposed was neither

unguided nor unreasonable. The district court took the Guidelines into account by

recognizing the Guidelines range, see United States v. Yahnke, 395 F.3d 823, 824

(8th Cir. 2005) (district courts, while not bound by Guidelines, must take them into

account in sentencing), but the court chose to impose a higher sentence based on

Pablo-Lepe’s history and characteristics, and the need to protect the public from

future harm by him, see Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 764-65 (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) guides

appellate determination of reasonableness); Yahnke, 395 F.3d at 825-26 (affirming,

as reasonable, sentence based on § 3553(a) factors of history and characteristics of

defendant and need to protect public).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2005 Entry ID: 1885839