United States v. Alex Medrano , 714 F. App'x 765 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAR 09 2018
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        Nos. 15-50272
    16-50192
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                    16-50341
    17-50249
    v.
    D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00556-R-1
    ALEX ROMERO MEDRANO, AKA
    Dreamer,
    MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 7, 2018**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    1. “[A] statutory minimum sentence is mandatory.” United States v. Sykes, 
    658 F.3d 1140
    , 1146 (9th Cir. 2011). A district court does not have authority under 18
    U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum. United States
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    v. Wipf, 
    620 F.3d 1168
    , 1171 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court erred by unlawfully
    sentencing Appellee Alex Medrano to a probationary sentence below the mandatory
    minimum as required by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
    2. Medrano argues that a five-year sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.
    Our precedent forecloses this challenge. See, e.g., Harmelin v. Michigan, 
    501 U.S. 957
    , 1001 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)
    (“The Eighth Amendment . . . forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly
    disproportionate’ to the crime.” (quoting Solem v. Helm, 
    463 U.S. 277
    , 288
    (1983)); United States v. Jensen, 
    425 F.3d 698
    , 708 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding
    imposition of a life sentence for a first-time conviction for drug possession does
    not violate the Eighth Amendment).
    3. Because the district court’s initial probationary sentence was unlawful, we
    must vacate the subsequent sentences following revocation, which are “part of the
    penalty for the initial offense.” Johnson v. United States, 
    529 U.S. 694
    , 700 (2000).
    We therefore VACATE the sentences in each of these consolidated appeals
    and REMAND for resentencing on the offense of conviction in accordance with
    the mandatory minimum required by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-50272, 16-50192, 16-50341, 17-50249

Citation Numbers: 714 F. App'x 765

Judges: Reinhardt, Tashima, Nguyen

Filed Date: 3/9/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024