United States v. Gilberto Lara-Ruiz, 781 F.3d 919

In 2007 Lara-Ruiz pleaded guilty to illegal entry and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; the government agreed not to prosecute related drug offenses except those involving violence.
In 2009 he was indicted on multiple counts including § 924(c) charges for possession and use of a firearm in relation to drug trafficking; trial evidence showed he displayed guns to customers, struck a customer with a handgun, and fired at her unoccupied car.
The jury convicted him of using a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime; the possession conviction was later vacated under the 2007 plea agreement.
On first appeal this court affirmed the use conviction but remanded for resentencing; the district court initially applied a 7-year mandatory minimum for brandishing and imposed 300 months.
After Alleyne, the appellate court remanded again because brandishing (which raises the statutory minimum) must be submitted to a jury; on remand the district court resentenced Lara-Ruiz to 300 months while clarifying the applicable mandatory minimum was five years for "use," not seven for "brandishing."
This appeal challenges (1) whether Lara-Ruiz was improperly resentenced for brandishing, (2) whether the predicate drug-trafficking offense was identified/proved, and (3) the substantive reasonableness of the 300-month sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether resentencing relied on brandishing (Alleyne issue)	Lara-Ruiz: court resentenced him for brandishing despite Alleyne, violating jury-findings rule	Government: district court clarified it applied § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (use — 5-year min) and corrected clerical error	Court: No Alleyne problem — judgment amended to reflect sentencing for "use" (five-year min) not brandishing
Whether predicate drug-trafficking offense was identified/proved	Lara-Ruiz: record does not identify the specific predicate drug offense linked to the gun use	Government: argument waived; prior appellate ruling upheld the use conviction (law of the case); trial record and defense admissions supplied nexus	Court: Argument waived and meritless on the merits; sufficient nexus and prior ruling controls
Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable	Lara-Ruiz: 300 months exceeds national averages (182 months) and is greater than necessary under § 3553(a)	Government: district court considered § 3553(a) factors (violent facts, history, deterrence, public protection) and explained rationale	Court: No abuse of discretion; district court sufficiently considered relevant factors and may impose a higher-than-average sentence
Procedural review standard for resentencing	N/A (context)	N/A	Court applied plain error/de novo standards as appropriate and reviewed substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum is an element for the jury)
United States v. Lara-Ruiz, 681 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2012) (prior appeal affirming use conviction and vacating possession conviction)
United States v. Lara-Ruiz, 721 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2013) (remand for resentencing under Alleyne)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts have broad discretion in sentencing; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Knox, 950 F.2d 516 (8th Cir. 1991) (§ 924(c) conviction requires a sufficient nexus between gun and drug trafficking)