1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1041

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Ermes Moreno-Meras, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 5, 2007

Filed: December 13, 2007 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ermes Moreno-Meras pleaded guilty to possessing, with intent to distribute,

500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and b(1). The district court1

calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 135-168 months in prison and sentenced

Moreno-Meras at the bottom of the range. On appeal, Moreno-Meras argues for the

first time that the court’s decision to give the Guidelines “substantial weight” was

contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). He also asserts that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than
-2-

necessary to promote the statutory goals of sentencing. We reject these arguments and

affirm.

We review for plain error the district court’s decision to give the Guidelines

substantial weight. See United States v. Patterson, 481 F.3d 1029, 1034 (8th Cir.

2007) (failure to raise issue at sentencing results in plain-error review on appeal).

Assuming, without deciding, that the district court committed plain error by according

the advisory Guidelines more weight than the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see,

e.g., United States v. Sachsenmaier, 491 F.3d 670, 685 (7th Cir. 2007) (district courts

must calculate advisory Guidelines range accurately, but ultimately must sentence

based on § 3553(a) factors “without any thumb on the scale favoring a guideline

sentence”), we conclude that Moreno-Meras has failed to establish a reasonable

probability that he otherwise would have received a more favorable sentence, cf.

United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 552-53 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (under plainerror review defendant must show reasonable probability that, but for Booker error,

he would have received more favorable sentence under advisory Guidelines).

We also conclude that Moreno-Meras’s sentence is not unreasonable. See Rita

v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (approving appellate presumption of

reasonableness); United States v. Garlewicz, 493 F.3d 933, 938 (8th Cir. 2007)

(presumption of reasonableness is accorded sentence within properly calculated

Guidelines range); United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005)

(reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs if court

fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives

significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate

factors but commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); see also United

States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2006) (it is rare for Guidelines

sentence to be higher than necessary to achieve statutory goals of sentencing), cert.

denied, 127 S. Ct. 3064 (2007).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________