United States v. Jorge Munoz-Chavez , 289 F. App'x 328 ( 2008 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 15, 2008
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-2288
v. (D. of N.M.)
JORGE MUNOZ-CHAVEZ, (D.C. No. 07-CR-01292-BB-1)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. **
Jorge Munoz-Chavez pleaded guilty in federal court to the following three
counts: (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more
of marijuana, (2) possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of
marijuana, and (3) reentry of a removed alien. He was sentenced to a total of 120
months in prison. After Munoz-Chavez filed a timely notice of appeal, his
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
counsel filed an Anders 1 brief and moved to withdraw his representation. Munoz-
Chavez did not file any materials on his own behalf. Because we agree that
Munoz-Chavez has no meritorious claims on appeal, we GRANT his counsel’s
request to withdraw, and AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
Prior to sentencing, the probation office completed a presentence
investigation report (PSR) for Munoz-Chavez’s case. The PSR concluded Munoz-
Chavez had a total offense level of 23 and a criminal history category of IV.
Based on this offense level and criminal history, the PSR calculated a United
States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) range of 70 to 87 months. The PSR
concluded, however, that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) imposed a mandatory
minimum sentence of 120 months in prison. 2 The district court adopted the PSR
without change and sentenced Munoz-Chavez to 120 months in prison. 3
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Munoz-Chavez argues the district court should have imposed a
Guidelines sentence of between 70 and 87 months, rather than the mandatory
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
USSG § 5G1.1(b) (2006) (“Where a statutorily required minimum
sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the
statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.”).
3
Specifically, the court sentenced him to a term of 120 months for counts 1
and 2, and a term of 70 months for count 3. These terms run concurrently, for a
total of 120 months in prison.
-2-
minimum sentence of 120 months. We review a federal criminal sentence for
reasonableness, giving deference to the district court under “the familiar abuse-
of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). But
we review a court’s interpretation of statutes and the Guidelines de novo. United
States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 540 (10th Cir. 1997).
We agree with Munoz-Chavez’s counsel that there are no non-frivolous
grounds on which to challenge the sentence. First, the district court properly
concluded the provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) requiring a minimum ten-
year sentence applies in this case. Section 841(b)(1)(B)(vii) prescribes a
sentencing range for defendants guilty of possessing with intent to distribute 100
kilograms or more of marijuana. Under this section, a defendant must be
sentenced to a minimum of 120 months in prison if the defendant committed the
offense after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense had become final.
Here, Munoz-Chavez pleaded guilty to violating § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii).
Furthermore, he had previously pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to
distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana. And this previous felony
conviction became final before he committed the offense at issue in this appeal.
Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding the ten-year mandatory
minimum provision applies to Munoz-Chavez.
Second, Munoz-Chavez does not have any non-frivolous grounds to
challenge the constitutionality of § 841(b)(1)(B). We have unequivocally held
-3-
mandatory minimum sentences are constitutional. See, e.g., United States v.
Harris, 447 F.3d 1300, 1307 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Booker 4 does not preclude a court
from imposing a statutory minimum established by Congress based on a
defendant’s record of prior convictions.”); United States v. Hatch, 925 F.2d 362,
363 (10th Cir. 1991) (rejecting defendant’s argument that mandatory minimum
sentences violate the Eighth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment).
Third, Munoz-Chavez is not eligible for statutorily-authorized relief from
his mandatory minimum sentence. Under certain limited circumstances, a district
court may impose a Guidelines-range sentence, rather than a mandatory minimum
sentence, for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). To be
eligible for this exception, the defendant must not “have more than one criminal
history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines.” Id. § 3553(f)(1).
Here, Munoz-Chavez has a total of seven criminal history points. Because
Munoz-Chavez is not eligible for this exception, the district court did not err in
imposing the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence.
4
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
-4-
III. CONCLUSION
After a careful review of the record, we conclude Munoz-Chavez has no
meritorious claims on appeal. We therefore GRANT counsel’s request to
withdraw and AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court.
Entered for the Court,
Timothy M. Tymkovich
United States Circuit Judge
-5-