United States v. S. Ramirez-Becerra , 170 F. App'x 982 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-1653
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the District
    v.                                 * of Nebraska.
    *
    Salvador Ramirez-Becerra,                *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.            *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 13, 2006
    Filed: March 20, 2006
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    The Government charged Salvador Ramirez-Becerra with possession with
    intent to distribute five hundred grams or more of methamphetamine. Based on this
    drug quantity, Ramirez-Becerra faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in
    prison. During the plea hearing, Ramirez-Becerra stated he understood the mandatory
    minimum sentence was ten years, and pleaded guilty. Later, Ramirez-Becerra did not
    object to the presentence report, which recommended the statutory minimum sentence
    of ten years. At the post-Booker sentencing, the parties agreed that the appropriate
    range was 120 to 135 months. The district court* imposed the statutory minimum of
    120 months in prison and five years of supervised release.
    On appeal, Ramirez-Becerra contends Harris v. United States, 
    536 U.S. 545
    ,
    568-69 (2002) (holding judges may decide facts giving rise to mandatory minimum
    sentences) is no longer good law after Blakely v. Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
     (2004),
    and United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005). We have continued to apply
    Harris after Booker, however. United States v. Keller, 
    413 F.3d 706
    , 710 (8th Cir.
    2005). Alternatively, Ramirez-Becerra argues that even if Harris remains good law,
    Booker required the district court to find drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt.
    We have rejected this argument as well. United States v. McKay, 
    431 F.3d 1085
    ,
    1094 (8th Cir. 2005). In this case, there is simply no error under Blakely or Booker
    because Ramirez-Becerra admitted to possessing the drug quantity that dictated his
    statutory mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 
    412 F.3d 942
    , 946 n.3 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bolanos, 
    409 F.3d 1045
    , 1049 (8th
    Cir. 2005).
    We thus affirm Ramirez-Becerra’s sentence.
    ______________________________
    *
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
    of Nebraska.
    -2-