U.S. v. Losoya-Mancias, No. C4-02-050.

• Decision Date: 25 August 2004
• Docket Number: No. C4-02-050.
• Citation: 332 F.Supp.2d 1261
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Arnaldo LOSOYA-MANCIAS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota

332 F.Supp.2d 1261

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Arnaldo LOSOYA-MANCIAS, Defendant.

No. C4-02-050.

United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Northwestern Division.

August 25, 2004.

Scott J. Schneider, U.S. Attorney's Office, Bismarck, ND, for Plaintiff.

Gary Harold Lee, Olson Burns Lee, Minot, ND, for Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE

HOVLAND, Chief Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Arnaldo Losoya-Mancias' ("Mancias") motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. The motion was filed on August 2, 2004. On August 3, 2004, the Court reviewed the motion and ordered the Government to file an answer. On August 12, 2004, the United States filed a response requesting that the Court deny Mancias' motion for post-conviction relief. Mancias submitted a reply brief on August 23, 2004. For the reasons set forth below, this Court denies Mancias' motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 26, 2002, Mancias pled guilty to one count of Possession With Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Mancias agreed to criminal forfeiture in the amount of $2,225.00. On December 16, 2002, the Court sentenced Mancias to 80 months imprisonment, 4 years supervised release and a $100.00 special assessment. In doing so, the Court found Mancias to be a career offender based on his prior convictions for Escape and Possession of Marijuana With Intent to Deliver. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Judgment was entered on December 17, 2002. On December 27, 2002, Mancias filed a Notice of Appeal. On November 28, 2003, the Eighth Circuit affirmed his conviction. United States v. Mancias, 350 F.3d 800 (8th Cir.2003).

This action arises out of Mancias' current motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence citing the recent Supreme Court decision of Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).¹

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Mancias contends that Blakely requires that his sentence be vacated because it was based on federal Sentencing Guideline enhancements not supported by facts found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. In Blakely, the Supreme Court invalidated an upward departure under the State of Washington's sentencing guidelines using the rule expressed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." The Supreme Court struck down Washington's sentencing guidelines and held that the sentence imposed was improper because the facts supporting the departure "were neither admitted by the petitioner nor found by a jury." Blakely, ___ U.S. at ___, 124 S.Ct. at 2537.² The Court will address the issue of whether the Blakely opinion operates in favor of Mancias.

A. THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS — EXISTING PRECEDENT

This Court is bound to apply the precedent of the United States Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit. The doctrine of stare decisis demands that the Court not lightly cast aside past decisions. See Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 403, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339 (1970).

The United States Supreme Court laid out the rationale behind the doctrine of stare decisis:

[T]he desirability that the law furnish a clear guide for the conduct of individuals, to enable them to plan their affairs with assurance against untoward surprise; the importance of furthering fair and expeditious adjudication by eliminating the need to relitigate every relevant proposition in every case; and the necessity of maintaining public faith in the judiciary as a source of impersonal and reasoned judgments.

Moragne, 398 U.S. 375, 403, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339.

The Supreme Court made it clear in Blakely it was not invalidating the federal Sentencing Guidelines. 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2538 n. 9. In what has become a famous and oft-quoted footnote, Justice Scalia wrote "[t]he Federal Guidelines are not before us, and we express no opinion on them." Id. Likewise, in Apprendi, the Supreme Court did not alter the Sentencing Guidelines beyond its ruling in the case. 530 U.S. 466, 497 n. 21, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (stating "[t]he Guidelines are, of course, not before the Court. We therefore express no view on the subject beyond what this Court has already held") (citing Edwards v. United States, 523 U.S. 511, 515, 118 S.Ct. 1475, 140 L.Ed.2d 703 (1998)).

Despite Justice Scalia's footnote and deflection of what many maintain is the real issue, federal and state courts are daily weighing in on the "havoc" the Blakely decision has created. See ___ U.S. ___, ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2549, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) (O'Connor, J., dissenting — "The Court ignores the havoc it is about to wreak on trial courts across the country.") It is clear the "havoc" envisioned and feared by Justice O'Connor has occurred. There is currently no consensus and considerable uncertainty among the federal circuit courts and district courts as to whether Blakely applies to the federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Prior case law reveals that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the Sentencing Guidelines against close scrutiny and constitutional attack. See Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989); Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993); Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 115 S.Ct. 2199, 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995); United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 117 S.Ct. 633, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997); Edwards v. United States, 523 U.S. 511, 118 S.Ct. 1475, 140 L.Ed.2d 703 (1998). However, after carefully surveying the Supreme Court precedent, it is undisputed that the Sentencing Guidelines have never faced a Sixth Amendment right to jury trial challenge such as the one mounted in Blakely against the State of Washington's sentencing guidelines. None of the Supreme Court cases which have addressed the federal Sentencing Guidelines have even discussed the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, and none have involved a Sixth Amendment challenge.

The Eighth Circuit has held that the Sentencing Guidelines do not violate the rule of Apprendi. See United States v. Banks, 340 F.3d 683, 684-85 (8th Cir.2003). No other Eighth Circuit opinions have been finalized since Blakely regarding the constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines. Although the Eighth Circuit held in United States v. Mooney, No. 02-3388, 2004 WL 1636960 (8th Cir. July 27, 2004), that the Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional, that decision has since been vacated and will be heard en banc at a later date. A similar decision in a case entitled United States v. Pirani, No. 03-2871, has also been vacated and a rehearing en banc has been ordered to be "held at a time and place to be announced." 2004 WL 1748930 (8th Cir. August 16, 2004). As a result, there is no binding post-Blakely precedent in the Eighth Circuit.

B. CAREER OFFENDER

Mancias' upward departure stems from Section 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). That section provides in relevant part as follows:

(a) A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), if the offense level for a career offender from the table in this subsection is greater than the offense level otherwise applicable, the offense level from the table in this subsection shall apply. A career offender's criminal history category in every case under this subsection shall be Category VI.

At the time of his sentencing, Mancias had two prior convictions for Escape and Possession of Marijuana With Intent to Deliver. The Court used Section 4B1.1 to assign an offense level of 24 to Mancias. As a result of the plea, the Court imposed a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, leaving a total adjusted offense level of 21 under the Sentencing Guidelines. Mancias challenges this finding.

There are a multitude of complex questions raised by the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington. Suffice it to say there is a great deal of legal uncertainty in the wake of Blakely. There are many who believe the Blakely decision almost certainly invalidates the federal Sentencing Guidelines. The landscape has now changed dramatically and there is a need for a careful evaluation of the sentencing system in federal court and the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Hopefully, guidance from the United States Supreme Court is forthcoming. The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear two appeals on October 4, 2004, the opening day of the new term, to address the implications of Blakely and the future of the federal Sentencing Guidelines. However, despite the fate of criminal justice and federal sentencings in the wake of Blakely, it is well-understood that Blakely did not disrupt the maxim that courts may take into account the fact of a prior conviction without the use of a jury. ___ U.S. ___, ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536, 159 L.Ed.2d 403. In other words, the fact of a defendant's prior convictions does not require a jury determination in order to support an increase in a defendant's sentence.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the government does not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions for a district...