United States v. Gilberto Lara-Ruiz
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14760
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Lara-Ruiz appeals his sentence after the district court resentenced him on count 15 on Oct. 10, 2012 under Lara-Ruiz II.
- Count 15 charged use and discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, incorporating Counts One and Three–Nine.
- The jury convicted Lara-Ruiz of using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
- At resentencing, the court applied a seven-year mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) based on testimony that Lara-Ruiz hit Heather Bledsoe with a gun and then used it to shoot her car.
- The court concluded the related acts occurred contemporaneously to punish for intimidating and collecting drug proceeds, and sentenced Lara-Ruiz to 300 months consecutive to a prior sentence in Lara-Ruiz I.
- The court stated that if only the five-year minimum had applied, it would have reached the same sentence after applying the § 3553(a) factors and thus the sentence was subject to Alleyne remand for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne requires remand for resentencing due to jury findings on brandishing | Lara-Ruiz argues the jury did not find brandishing, so a seven-year minimum cannot be applied | Government argues plain error review should apply and Alleyne requires remedy | Remanded for resentencing consistent with Alleyne and the verdict. |
| Whether the error is plain and affects substantial rights under Rule 52 | Alleyne created a new requirement that brandishing be a jury finding | Error should be reviewed as plain error because it occurred after trial | Error is plain and affects substantial rights; remand required. |
| Whether the error substantially affected the fairness of proceedings under plain error standard | Imposing a different sentencing range than charged violated the jury's verdict | Remand would cure error; no structural error found | Error substantially affected proceedings; remand warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory-minimum facts must be jury-found)
- Maynie v. United States, 257 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2001) (plain-error review for Apprendi-type errors; remand when uncharged element affects sentence)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain-error standard requires substantial rights impact)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error principle; structural errors are rare)
- Anderson v. United States, 236 F.3d 427 (8th Cir. 2001) (Apprendi errors not per se structural)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (pre-Alleyne framework overturned by Alleyne)