Case Name: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Ernesto CIRILO-MUÑOZ, Defendant, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-04
Citations: 582 F.3d 54
Docket Number: No. 08-1830
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Ernesto CIRILO-MUÑOZ, Defendant, Appellant.
Judges: Before TORRUELLA, STAHL and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 582
Pages: 54–57

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Ernesto CIRILO-MUÑOZ, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 08-1830.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Submitted July 29, 2009.
Decided Sept. 4, 2009.
Rafael Anglada-López on brief for appellant.
Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Julia M. Meconiates, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Before TORRUELLA, STAHL and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Upon remand from this court, see United States v. Cirilo-Muñoz, 504 F.3d 106 (1st Cir.2007), Ernesto Cirilo-Muñoz was resentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months. Cirilo-Muñoz once again appeals.
He asks, in conclusory fashion, that we declare the statutory mandatory minimum unconstitutional as applied to him, but he supplies no supporting argument. He did not present a constitutionally-based argument below so the claim is waived.
The argument that Cirilo-Muñoz did raise below and which he reiterates in somewhat fleeting fashion here is unavailing. Courts have uniformly rejected the claim that § 3553(a)'s "no greater than necessary" language authorizes a district court to sentence below the statutory minimum. See United States v. Samas, 561 F.3d 108, 110-111 (2d Cir.2009), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Jun. 22, 2009) (No. 08-11058); United States v. Huskey, 502 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir.2007); United States v. Franklin, 499 F.3d 578, 585 (6th Cir.2007); United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir.2007).
There being neither error of law nor abuse of discretion in the imposition of the statutory mandatory minimum sentence, the judgment of the district court entered on June 12, 2008 is affirmed.