United States v. Analicia Ruiz , 641 F. App'x 663 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 14-3765
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Analicia Ruiz
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
    ____________
    Submitted: December 14, 2015
    Filed: April 12, 2016
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Analicia Ruiz pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in
    violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846. At sentencing, the district
    court1 determined that her advisory guidelines sentencing range was 135 to 168
    1
    The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern
    District of Iowa.
    months in prison; granted the government’s motion for a substantial assistance
    sentence reduction, see U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1; denied Ruiz’s request for an additional
    downward variance; and sentenced her to 114 months in prison. Ruiz appeals, arguing
    the court committed procedural error and imposed a substantively unreasonable
    sentence. We affirm.
    Ruiz conspired with Dennis Guzman and Moises Josue Vasquez Sandoval to
    distribute methamphetamine. Guzman, the father of Ruiz’s daughter and leader of the
    conspiracy, has not been located or charged. Ruiz’s offense conduct included
    registering a vehicle and leasing two apartments that were used to transport and store
    drugs and drug proceeds. She also stored drugs at her sister’s residence, personally
    sold methamphetamine, and was involved in the receipt of a twelve-pound shipment
    from a California source.
    Ruiz and Vasquez were charged in the same indictment. Both pleaded guilty.
    At Vasquez’s sentencing, the district court determined an advisory guidelines range
    of 135 to 168 months in prison, granted the government’s motion for a substantial
    assistance reduction, and sentenced Vasquez to 74 months in prison.
    At Ruiz’s sentencing one month later, the district court found that she was
    accountable for a substantially greater quantity of actual methamphetamine than
    Vasquez but determined that her guidelines range, like Vasquez’s, was 135 to 168
    months in prison. The court granted a 15% substantial assistance reduction, as the
    government recommended. Counsel for Ruiz then urged the court to vary downward
    from the guidelines range based on her romantic involvement with Guzman, lack of
    criminal history, and good employment history. Counsel argued Ruiz should receive
    the same sentence as Vasquez, 74 months. The court declined to vary downward
    because of Ruiz’s “fairly deep” involvement in a serious offense, the need to avoid
    unwarranted disparity “among defendants with similar records who have been found
    guilty of similar conduct,” and the “very different” sentencing factors that Vasquez
    -2-
    had presented. The court sentence Ruiz to 114 months, 15% below the bottom of her
    advisory guidelines range.
    On appeal, Ruiz argues the district court committed procedural error in applying
    the guidelines and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. She argues the
    district court procedurally erred by failing to explain why she and Vasquez received
    “such dissimilar sentences.” This contention is without merit. “We will not sustain
    a procedural challenge to the district court’s discussion of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
    sentencing factors by a defendant who did not object to the adequacy of the court’s
    explanation at sentencing.” United States v. Williamson, 
    782 F.3d 397
    , 399 (8th Cir.
    2015) (alteration and quotation omitted). Moreover, as noted, the district court
    explained in some detail the sentencing factors that resulted in the denial of a
    discretionary downward variance.
    Ruiz further argues that the prosecutor at sentencing made “impermissible” and
    “contradictory” arguments “not supported by the record.” That would not constitute
    procedural error by the court, nor does the record support this contention. Ruiz also
    argues the district court granted a variance to Vasquez “because of his alien status,”
    an impermissible factor. Even if true, this is not reason to reverse Ruiz’s sentence;
    indeed, her position is that she should receive the same sentence as Vasquez.
    Moreover, nothing in the record supports the contention that Vasquez’s alienage
    influenced the district court’s sentence. Vasquez’s attorney urged the court to impose
    a 30-month sentence because he will almost certainly be removed to Honduras, a
    dangerous country where Guzman apparently resides. The Guidelines expressly
    provide that a higher level of risk associated with cooperation is a proper factor to
    consider in determining a substantial assistance sentence reduction.               See
    § 5K1.1(a)(4).
    Ruiz argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because she was
    granted a smaller substantial assistance departure than Vasquez. This contention is
    -3-
    without merit. Absent an allegation that the district court was motivated by an
    unconstitutional motive, we may not review the extent of a § 5K1.1 downward
    departure. United States v. Billue, 
    576 F.3d 898
    , 905 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    558 U.S. 1058
    (2009). The district court concluded that Vasquez was not similarly situated for
    sentencing purposes. Though Ruiz disagrees, this is not a basis for concluding that
    her sentence is substantively unreasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Brunken, 
    581 F.3d 635
    , 638 (8th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 
    562 U.S. 949
    (2010). As we have
    repeatedly stated, “[w]here a district court has sentenced a defendant below the
    advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its
    discretion in not varying downward still further.” United States v. Deering, 
    762 F.3d 783
    , 787 (8th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted).
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-3765

Citation Numbers: 641 F. App'x 663

Filed Date: 4/12/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023