United States v. Gomez-Cardenas

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 20, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 04-2270
v. District of New Mexico
JOSE GOMEZ-CARDENAS, (D.C. No. CR-04-1181)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, SEYMOUR, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Jose Gomez-Cardenas appeals his sentence of 46 months’
imprisonment for illegally reentering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. §
1326. Because his sentencing took place during the period of uncertainty prior to
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court entered alternative
sentences of equal length: 46 months as an application of the Guidelines, or 46
months if the mandatory Guidelines were held unconstitutional. Mr. Gomez-
Cardenas argues that the mandatory application of the Federal Sentencing
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Guidelines during his sentencing was unconstitutional in light of Booker. He also
claims that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial
when it enhanced his sentence on the basis of a judge-found fact that he had been
previously convicted of a felony that was a crime of violence.
Both of these claims are foreclosed by controlling circuit precedent. See
United States v. Serrano-Dominguez, 406 F.3d 1221, 1224 (10th Cir. 2005)
(holding that because “[t]he district court applied the sentencing methodology
suggested in Booker and concluded that even if the Guidelines were not
mandatory [the defendant] would receive the same sentence[,] the error in his
sentence is harmless”); United States v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir.
2005) (holding that “determining whether a given felony constitutes a ‘violent
felony’ is a question of law and not fact, [and therefore] the Sixth Amendment
does not require that determination to be made by a jury”).
The sentence of Mr. Gomez-Cardenas is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-2-