United States v. Renteria-Garcia

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0113n.06
Filed: February 14, 2006
No. 04-6359
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIGUEL ANGEL RENTERIA-GARCIA, ) WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
Before: NELSON, DAUGHTREY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. The court remands for resentencing in light of United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because the district court sentenced Renteria-Garcia under the
erroneous assumption that the federal sentencing guidelines were mandatory.
I.
Renteria-Garcia pled guilty to illegal re-entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Renteria-Garcia is a native and citizen of Mexico who was deported in 1998
after pleading guilty to second degree robbery. He illegally returned to the United States and was
arrested on March 28, 2003, after being involved in a minor traffic accident.
No. 04-6359
United States v. Renteria-Garcia
After pleading guilty, Renteria-Garcia was sentenced to 41 months’ imprisonment. This was
the low end of the applicable guideline range after an offense level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. The district court did not articulate an alternative sentence if the guidelines were
found advisory.
II.
Because Renteria-Garcia did not object to being sentenced under the guidelines, this court
reviews for plain error. United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516, 527 (6th Cir. 2005). In reviewing
for plain error, we consider whether (1) there was an error, (2) which was plain, (3) that affected the
defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) that, in this court’s discretionary view, seriously affects the
fundamental fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See Johnson v. United
States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997).
III.
A sentencing court’s failure to treat the guidelines as advisory constitutes plain error as a
matter of law. Barnett, 398 F.3d at 527. In the present case, it is undisputed that the district court
committed plain error because it sentenced Renteria-Garcia under the now-erroneous assumption
that the Guidelines are mandatory. The only issues in this case concern the prejudice and fairness
prongs. The government has not rebutted the presumption of prejudice, and the district court offered
no alternative sentence if the guidelines were found advisory. See Barnett, 398 F.3d at 529 (stating
that presumption of prejudice was appropriate in the Booker context); see also United States v.
-2-
No. 04-6359
United States v. Renteria-Garcia
Trammel, 404 F.3d 397, 402 (6th Cir. 2005) (stating that being sentenced to the lowest possible
sentence under the guidelines heightens the risk of prejudice). Booker violations affect fundamental
fairness. Barnett, 398 F.3d at 529-30 (stating a sentence imposed under the pre-Booker regime
satisfies this requirement). Renteria-Garcia is, therefore, entitled to resentencing.
We therefore remand for resentencing in light of Booker’s remedial holding that the
sentencing guidelines are advisory.
-3-