Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Gutierrez, 10th Cir. (2006)
United States v. Gutierrez, 10th Cir. (2006)
United States v. Gutierrez, 10th Cir. (2006)
No. 05-2229
(D. of N.M .)
ENRIQU E GU TIERREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Enrique Gutierrez, appearing pro se, appeals his sentence for violation of
supervised release, which was set to run consecutively to his sentence for
possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He contends the district court
should have set these sentences to run concurrently. Taking jurisdiction pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. 1291, we AFFIRM .
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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; nevertheless, an order may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
I. Background
G utierrez w as convicted for drug conspiracy in federal court in 1999. He
was sentenced to 295 days imprisonment with five years of supervised release to
follow. His term of supervised release began on October 20, 2000.
On M arch 27, 2004, while Gutierrez was still on supervised release, he was
again arrested and charged with various federal crimes, including possession with
intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Because possession of a
controlled substance also constituted a violation of a mandatory condition of his
release, the probation officer filed a petition to revoke his term of supervision.
Gutierrez pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute and
separately admitted the supervised release violation.
On July 11, 2005, the district court conducted a sentencing hearing on both
matters. For the 2004 drug offense, the court sentenced him to 80 months
imprisonment and a supervised release term of four years. For the supervised
release violation, the court revoked Gutierrezs term of supervision and
resentenced him. Before the court issued this second sentence, how ever, defense
counsel asked the court to exercise its discretion and run Gutierrezs two
sentences concurrently, or at least partially concurrently, instead of consecutively.
Specifically, counsel stated,
Of course, the [G]uidelines are now advisory, but even prior to
that, the recommendations as to supervised release sentences
were considered advisory, so the Court has broad discretion. The
-2-
-3-
-4-
light of Booker, Gutierrez cannot challenge the courts decision to exercise broad
discretion when that is exactly what he asked the court to do.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT counsels motion to withdraw and
DISM ISS the appeal.
Timothy M . Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-5-