United States v. Soto ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-27-2005
USA v. Soto
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4767
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Soto" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 328.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/328
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 04-4767
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CARLOS LUIS SOTO
a/k/a CARLITO
Carlos Luis Soto,
Appellant
____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. No.: 03-cr-00173-7
District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 25, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER, and ROSENN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 27, 2005)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
ROSENN, Circuit Judge.
Carlos Luis Soto (Soto) appeals his sentence in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claiming that the District Court clearly erred by
giving him a higher sentence than the judge thought appropriate because he felt
compelled to follow the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. A grand jury in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania indicted Soto charging him with one count of conspiracy to
distribute in excess of fifty grams of cocaine base (crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,
three counts of distribution of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and aiding and
abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, and three counts of distribution of crack within one
thousand feet of a school in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860(a) and aiding and abetting.
Soto, pursuant to a written plea agreement, pled guilty to three counts of
distribution of crack cocaine and three counts of distribution of crack within one thousand
feet of a school. The Government agreed to withdraw the conspiracy count at sentencing.
Because Soto qualified as a career offender, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines called for
292-365 months imprisonment. At sentencing, Soto objected to the application of the
Guidelines as unconstitutional in the wake of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296(2004). The District Court overruled this objection, found that the guidelines were
binding, and sentenced Soto to 292 months of imprisonment.
After Soto filed a timely notice of appeal, his attorney filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). He sought to withdraw as counsel of record
and stated that the appeal was frivolous because the record shows the court would have
imposed the same sentence without the Guidelines. Soto filed a pro se brief and argues
that he is entitled to resentencing and an opportunity to seek a lower sentence. The
2
Government agrees.
Because Soto preserved his objection to the constitutional application of the
Guidelines, the District Court’s sentencing decision is subject to review. Therefore, if
error was committed, the burden rests on the Government to establish that the error did
not affect the outcome of the case. United States v. Henry, 282 F.2d 242, 251 (3d Cir.
2002). In its brief, the Government submits that it cannot sustain its burden because the
District Court applied the guidelines as mandatory. The Supreme Court held in United
States v Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), that the mandatory application of the guidelines is
not constitutionally permissible.
At the sentencing hearing, the Judge stated:
The guidelines in this matter call for a sentence of between 292
months and 365 months. . . . [Soto] has over and over again in the state
system refused to get the message, and the end result of that is that he’s
going to pay a very, very significant price today.
The guidelines provide for the sentence which I’m going to impose
at the lower end of the guidelines because I think that’s more than
adequate to deal with the situation. I would indicate, however, that even if
there were no guidelines, when you look at a record like this with five
prior convictions for doing exactly the same thing, you have to reach the
conclusion that a significant jail sentence is appropriate.
So I’m going to sentence Mr. Soto at the bottom of the guideline
range, which is approximately 24 years plus a few months, which is a very
significant sentence. I think that will satisfy the ends of justice.
This language clearly suggests the possibility that the court would find a lesser sentence
to be adequate and appropriate, especially in light of the command of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
3
that the sentence be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary.”
For the reasons stated above, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing
in accordance with Booker. Because of the remand to the District Court, Counsel’s
request to withdraw at this time is denied.
4