United States v. Octavio Alberto Calvo Gomez , 450 F. App'x 811 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT           FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-12147                       DECEMBER 7, 2011
    Non-Argument Calendar                     JOHN LEY
    ________________________                     CLERK
    D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20697-JAL-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    OCTAVIO ALBERTO CALVO GOMEZ,
    a.k.a. Octavio Alberto Calvo-Gomez,
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (December 7, 2011)
    Before MARCUS, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Octavio Alberto Calvo Gomez appeals his 60-month sentence imposed after
    pleading guilty to possession of a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexual
    conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B). Gomez argues that the court erred
    in applying the number-of-images enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
    2G2.2(b)(7)(A), because Congress’s enactment of that provision violated the
    separation-of-powers doctrine. After thorough review, we affirm.
    We review questions of law dealing with the Sentencing Guidelines de novo.
    United States v. Kapordelis, 
    569 F.3d 1291
    , 1314 (11th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 
    130 S.Ct. 1315
     (2010). The Guideline at issue, U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(A), derives from
    the Protect Act, Pub.L.No. 108-21, § 401(i), 
    117 Stat. 650
    , 672-73 (2003), under
    which Congress directly amended § 2G2.4(b) with increased offense levels
    corresponding to the number of images possessed. Under section 2G2.2(b)(7)(A), a
    defendant’s offense level is increased by 2 if he possessed between 10 and 150
    images of child pornography.
    The Sentencing Commission is established as an independent commission in
    the U.S. judicial branch. 
    28 U.S.C. § 991
    (a). In Mistretta v. United States, the
    Supreme Court held that Congress’s creation of the Commission, as well as the
    inclusion of federal judges on the Commission, did not violate the Constitution’s
    nondelegation and separation-of-powers doctrines. 
    488 U.S. 361
    , 412 (1989).
    2
    Contrary to Gomez’s arguments, we agree with our sister circuits that
    Congress’s creation of the enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(A) was
    constitutional. See, e.g., United States v. Rodgers, 
    610 F.3d 975
    , 977-78 (7th Cir.
    2010) (persuasive authority) (holding that Congress’s creation of the guideline
    provision was constitutional because Congress retained the power to amend the
    Sentencing Guidelines when it created the Sentencing Commission); United States
    v. Bastian, 
    603 F.3d 460
    , 464-65 (8th Cir. 2010) (persuasive authority) (holding that,
    under Mistretta, U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) was created constitutionally). Indeed, in
    determining that the Sentencing Commission was “an independent agency,” the
    Supreme Court in Mistretta held that “the Commission is fully accountable to
    Congress, which can revoke or amend any or all of the Guidelines as it sees fit.” 
    488 U.S. at 393-94
    ; cf. United States v. Osburn, 
    955 F.2d 1500
    , 1504-05 (11th Cir. 1992)
    (“Federal legislation mandating length of sentences does not violate the separation
    of powers doctrine.”). Accordingly, we affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-12147

Citation Numbers: 450 F. App'x 811

Judges: Marcus, Martin, Anderson

Filed Date: 12/7/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024