United States v. Zaragoza , 217 F. App'x 783 ( 2007 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
February 22, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 05-1491
v. (D. Colorado)
R UBEN ZA RA G O ZA , (D.C. No. 04-CR-496-M SK)
Defendant - Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before M U RPH Y, M cW ILLIAM S, and HA RTZ, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Zaragoza was indicted on December 7, 2004, in the United States
District Court for the D istrict of Colorado on one count of possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one count of possession of a
firearm by a fugitive from justice, see id. § 922(g)(2). He pleaded guilty to the
first count in accordance with a plea agreement that required the government to
dismiss the second count, move for a reduction in his offense level under United
States Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1(b) (acceptance of responsibility), and
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
recommend that he be sentenced at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range.
The district court sentenced him on October 28, 2005, to 30 months’
im prisonment. O n appeal he argues that he should have been given a below-
Guidelines sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment. W e have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
I. B AC KGR OU N D
In 1995 M r. Zaragoza was sentenced to prison in Utah for issuing bad
checks and sexual abuse of a child. After being paroled in 1999 he served three
additional prison terms for parole violations. In M ay 2004 he absconded from a
comm unity corrections center where he was under parole supervision. Colorado
law-enforcement officers received information in October 2004 that he was
residing in Calhan, Colorado, and working at a bowling alley there. The owner of
the bowling alley, M s. Allie Brooks-Sawyer, had also hired him to work on her
ranch doing yard work and helping her care for her horses. M s. Brooks-Sawyer
had borrowed a shotgun and given it to him to protect her horses from mountain
lion attacks. He used it to kill rabbits and stored it under the bed in his bedroom
at the ranch home. The officers who arrested M r. Zaragoza found the gun during
a search of the bedroom.
The presentence report computed an offense level of 17 and a criminal
history in Category IV, resulting in a Guidelines sentencing range of 37-46
months’ imprisonment. But the district court found that Category IV
-2-
overrepresented the seriousness of his previous offenses and lowered his criminal
history for sentencing purposes to Category III, reducing the Guidelines range to
30-37 months.
At sentencing, M r. Zaragoza contended that the facts surrounding his crime
justified a sentence below the G uidelines range. He claimed that he did not ow n
the gun in question, that he used it exclusively on M s. Brook-Sawyer’s property
to hunt rabbits and protect horses from mountain lions, and that his offense was
unlike most others involving felons possessing weapons. The district court
rejected these arguments, noting that (1) M r. Zaragoza was being compensated for
unlaw fully possessing a gun in his w ork, and (2) he had absconded from parole
and was a fugitive at the time of his arrest. The court imposed a sentence of 30
months’ imprisonment.
II. D ISC USSIO N
M r. Zaragoza challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. See United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005) (reviewing sentences for
unreasonableness). “[T]he reasonableness standard of review set forth in Booker
necessarily encompasses both the reasonableness of the length of the sentence, as
well as the method by which the sentence was calculated.” United States v.
Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1055 (10th Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted).
“Reasonableness review is guided by the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
which include the nature of the offense and characteristics of the defendant, as
-3-
well as the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime, to provide
adequate deterrence, to protect the public, and to provide the defendant with
needed training or treatment.” Id. at 1053 (internal citation omitted). W e review
the district court’s “factual findings for clear error and legal determinations de
novo.” Id. at 1054.
W e reject M r. Zaragoza’s argument that the sentence was unreasoned. The
district court explicitly considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It heard
and rejected M r. Zaragoza’s argument that he should receive a lower sentence.
W e see no error in the manner by which the district court sentenced
M r. Zaragoza.
W e also reject M r. Zaragoza’s claim that the sentence was unreasonably
long. The sentence was within the Guidelines range. Although there were some
extenuating factors, the sentence was quite appropriate for someone who had
violated his state parole on three occasions and was a fugitive from justice at the
time of his arrest.
III. C ON CLU SIO N
W e AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. W e GRANT M s. Kathleen
Torres’s motion to w ithdraw as appellate counsel for the U nited States.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-4-