United States v. Michael Mendoza ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1645
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael Mendoza
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: January 9, 2023
Filed: May 9, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
After Michael Mendoza pleaded guilty to possessing at least 50 grams of
methamphetamine with intent to distribute it, the district court1 gave him a statutory-
minimum sentence of ten years in prison. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
Although he claims that the statutory minimum does not apply under the so-called
“safety valve,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), we affirm because the court made clear that
it would have imposed the same sentence anyway.
The safety valve requires courts to ignore the “statutory minimum” if, among
other things,
the defendant does not have—
(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal
history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined
under the sentencing guidelines;
(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing
guidelines; and
(C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the
sentencing guidelines[.]
Id. § 3553(f)(1). Mendoza was ineligible for the safety valve, according to the
district court, because he had “a prior 3-point offense.” Id. § 3553(f)(1)(B). He
disagrees.
No matter who has the better of the argument, any error here was harmless.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); see also United States v. Davis, 736 F.3d 783, 785 (8th
Cir. 2013) (explaining how to analyze harmlessness when the alleged error involves
a statutory minimum). The district court made clear at sentencing that it “would
have imposed” the same ten-year sentence “even if th[e] mandatory minimum didn’t
exist.” See United States v. White, 863 F.3d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 2017) (noting that
an error is harmless if “the district court specifies the resolution of a particular issue
did not affect the ultimate determination of a sentence” (citation omitted)). The
reasons were that Mendoza had been caught with “a very large shipment . . . of
methamphetamine,” had previously smuggled drugs into the United States “at least
three . . . times,” and “didn’t perform well on supervised release.” See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Given that the “alternatively imposed” sentence would have been the
same, the resolution of the safety-valve issue makes no difference. White, 863 F.3d
at 1020 (citation omitted).
-2-
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-3-