United States v. Blanca Nubia Guzman , 155 F. App'x 461 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
FILED
No. 05-13071 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar November 21, 2005
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-20020-CR-PAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BLANCA NUBIA GUZMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 21, 2005)
Before CARNES, PRYOR and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is a direct criminal appeal from convictions and sentences entered upon
a guilty plea of defendant Blanca Nubia Guzman to a two-count indictment of: (1)
importing one kilogram or more of heroin into the United States, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 952(a); and (2) possessing with intent to distribute one kilogram or
more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Appointed counsel for
defendant, Michael Spivack, has filed a motion to withdraw with a brief prepared
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), to which
defendant filed a one-page handwritten objection. Counsel’s motion is granted and
Guzman’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.
Guzman signed a Statement of Facts conceding that, “if this case went to
trial,” the government could establish beyond a reasonable doubt: that she arrived
at Miami International Airport on a flight from Colombia; that a routine customs
inspection of her baggage revealed several “unusually heavy” pairs of shoes
containing heroin; that she knew the “substance contained inside the shoes was
heroin”; and laboratory tests showed that the shoes contained a total of 2,617
grams of heroin. After conducting a thorough change of plea colloquy pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the district court found that the plea was
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and that a sufficient factual basis
supported the plea.
Guzman subsequently filed written objections to the Pre-sentence
Investigation Report (“PSI”). She contended that she was eligible for acceptance
of responsibility, minor role, and safety-valve reductions. At the sentencing
hearing, the court concluded that Guzman deserved the benefit of the acceptance of
2
responsibility and the safety-valve provision, but declined to grant her a minor-role
reduction, finding that Guzman’s “own statement that she was bringing [the heroin
to the United States] and was going to sell it herself . . . and considering the
amount and the nature of the drug, I cannot see that a minor role is appropriate
here.” The court imposed a sentence of 70 months’ imprisonment. Neither
Guzman nor her attorney asserted any objections to the court’s findings of fact or
the manner in which the sentence was imposed.
In his Anders brief, counsel states that there are no non-frivolous claims that
can be pursued on appeal but raises the issue of the district court’s denial of a
minor-role reduction. Defendant Guzman’s July 25, 2005, handwritten letter to the
Clerk, which we construe liberally, raises three potential issues: (1) that her
sentence of 70 months’ imprisonment was too “harsh”; (2) that the district court
erred by failing to “consider” her family circumstances; and (3) that because she
“did not understand her lawyer,” and was “nervous wreck” about pleading guilty,
her guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary.
We have carefully considered these arguments and conclude that they
present no issues of arguable merit for appeal.
The district court, after analyzing the characteristics of Guzman’s offense,
correctly concluded that she played an integral role in the importation of the heroin
3
for which she was held accountable, and therefore did not clearly err in denying the
minor-role reduction.
The court determined that the applicable advisory sentencing guideline range
was 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment, imposed a sentence of 70 months’
imprisonment and concluded that such a sentence was reasonable, considering the
factors detailed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record reflects that the district court
carefully considered all of the relevant factors in imposing the sentence and
correctly concluded, in light of the maximum sentence available, that the sentence
imposed was reasonable.
The district court sentenced Guzman after reviewing the Pre-sentence
Investigation Report and carefully considering “the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.,
3553(a)(1) through (7).” The PSI contained a “Personal and Family Data” section
that described in detail Guzman’s family circumstances. The information
contained in the PSI is nearly identical to the family circumstances raised in
Guzman’s objection filed in this Court. It is evident that the district court weighed
these circumstances while deciding Guzman’s sentence.
A thorough Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy was conducted
by the district court, where it correctly ascertained that she knowingly and
voluntarily entered a guilty plea. An independent review of the entire record
reveals no issues of arguable merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400.
4
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Guzman’s convictions
and sentences are AFFIRMED.
5