UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Defendant Alejandro Varela-de la Cruz appeals the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado's imposition of an eighty-four month sentence
for violating Title 8, United States Code, Section 1326(a), (b)(2) (illegal reentry
into the United States after arrest and deportation, and after having been
convicted of an aggravated felony without reapplying for admission and without
the consent of the Attorney General). This sentence was imposed following
Defendant's entry of an unconditional guilty plea. Defendant appeals his
sentence to this court.
Because Defendant entered an unconditional guilty plea, our review is
limited to whether his sentence was correctly calculated. United States v. James,
157 F.3d 1218, 1219 (10th Cir. 1998). Our review of the record indicates that
the district court correctly computed Defendant's offense level and his criminal
history category. In fact, Defendant's plea stipulated that the district court
correctly calculated his offense level and criminal history category. Therefore,
Defendant's sentence was correctly calculated.
Defendant also objects to the district court's refusal to downwardly depart
from the Guidelines' mandated range of seventy-seven to ninety-six months'
imprisonment. If a district court is aware that it has the power to depart from the
Guidelines but in its discretion chooses not to, this court has no jurisdiction to
review the district court's decision. See United States v. Guidry, 199 F.3d
1150,
1162 (10th Cir. 1999); United States v. Fagan, 162 F.3d 1280, 1282 (10th Cir.
1998). A thorough review of Defendant's sentencing hearing reveals that the
district court was well aware of its power to downwardly depart, but within its
discretion chose not to. As such, we are without jurisdiction to review that
decision.(1)
Mr. Varela-de la Cruz' sentence is hereby AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
*. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the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 and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
1.We grant Defendant-Appellant's counsel's
motion to withdraw pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEJANDRO VARELA-DE LA
CRUZ, also known as Luis Donaldo,
also known as Miguel Hurtado, also
known as Antonio Velasquez-Perez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Before SEYMOUR and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and
BRORBY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.
| Keyword |
Case |
Docket |
Date: Filed /
Added |
(12995 bytes)
(7553 bytes)
Comments to: WebMaster,
ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: December 11, 2001.
HTML markup © 2001, Washburn University School of Law.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2001/12/01-1326.htm.