Opinion ID: 201742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Blakely/Booker Claims

Text: In his first supplemental brief, Guzman argues that his sentence is invalid under Blakely because the facts underlying his career offender enhancement (specifically his age and the fact of his prior offenses) were not found by a jury or admitted by him. In his second supplemental brief, he argues that he is entitled to remand for resentencing under Booker because he was sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines system and there was a reasonable probability that he would receive a lighter sentence under an -3- advisory Guidelines system. Neither claim has merit. Guzman received the mandatory minimum statutory sentence for the offense to which he pled guilty, i.e., conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. Therefore, there was no enhancement of his sentence based on judge-found facts. A mandatory minimum sentence imposed as required by a statute based on facts found by a jury or admitted by a defendant is not a candidate for Booker error. Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d at 75; see United States v. Bermudez, 2005 WL 1208131, No. 04-1222, slip op. at 19-20 (1st Cir. May 23, 2005). In addition, the rationale of Apprendi does not apply to sentence-enhancement provisions based upon prior criminal convictions. United States v. Moore, 286 F.3d 47, 51 (1st Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Stearns, 387 F.3d 104, 107 (1st Cir. 2004) (holding that the fact of a prior conviction is beyond the ambit of Blakely), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 1614 (2005). Post-Booker it remains the law that prior criminal convictions are not facts that a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Lewis, 406 F.3d 11, 21 n. 11 (1st Cir. 2005).1 1 To the extent that Guzman based his Blakely claim on the judicial factfinding with respect to his age at the time the offense was committed, that argument is frivolous. Guzman did not object below to the PSR's reporting of his birth date as 1966 (making him 35 at the time the offense was committed). In the post-Apprendi world, this court adopted a rule that any such error in sentencing should be held harmless so long as the evidence of -4- Defendant-Appellant's Motion to Proffer Facts Not on the Record is granted. Guzman's conviction and sentence are affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c). the trial judge's factual findings is overwhelming and no reasonable jury could have disagreed with them. United States v. Morgan, 384 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2004). -5-