Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEC 14 2004
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
v.
No. 04-2057
(D.C. No. CR-03-1849-JC)
(Dist. N.M.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, MURPHY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Andres Luque-Cano (Defendant) pled guilty to one count of reentry of a
deported alien previously convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8
U.S.C. 1326(a)(1), (2), and 1326(b)(2). The district court sentenced
Defendant to 77 months imprisonment followed by two years of supervised
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of
orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the
terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*
BACKGROUND
In December of 2003, Defendant pled guilty, without the benefit of a plea
bargain, to having illegally reentered the United States after being deported
following conviction for an aggravated felony.
At sentencing, the district court accepted the guideline calculation in the
presentence report (PSR), which placed Defendant at an offense level 21 and a
criminal history category VI, with a guideline range of 77 to 96 months
imprisonment. Defendant did not object to the PSR calculation, but did request a
downward departure. The district court denied the motion for a departure and
sentenced Defendant to 77 months, the shortest period of incarceration permitted
under the applicable guideline range.
-2-
DISCUSSION
1.
-3-
the instant offense occurred within two years of his release from prison. This
resulted in a criminal history category VI.
Defendant was sentenced within the applicable guideline for a combined
offense level of 21 and a criminal history category VI. We find no error in this
calculation of the guideline range, nor do we find it a violation of the cruel and
unusual clause of the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Hughes, 901 F.2d
830, 831-32 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Youngpeter, 986 F.2d 349, 355-56
(10th Cir. 1993).
2.
-4-
-5-
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS that portion of the appeal that
might be construed to challenge the district courts refusal to depart downward
and AFFIRM the conviction and sentence in this case.
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-6-