From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Medrano

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 9, 2018
No. 15-50272 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018)

Opinion

No. 15-50272 No. 16-50192 No. 16-50341 No. 17-50249

03-09-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALEX ROMERO MEDRANO, AKA Dreamer, Defendant-Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00556-R-1 MEMORANDUM Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 7, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). --------

1. "[A] statutory minimum sentence is mandatory." United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2011). A district court does not have authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum. United States v. Wipf, 620 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court erred by unlawfully sentencing Appellee Alex Medrano to a probationary sentence below the mandatory minimum as required by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).

2. Medrano argues that a five-year sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Our precedent forecloses this challenge. See, e.g., Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) ("The Eighth Amendment . . . forbids only extreme sentences that are 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime." (quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 288 (1983)); United States v. Jensen, 425 F.3d 698, 708 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding imposition of a life sentence for a first-time conviction for drug possession does not violate the Eighth Amendment).

3. Because the district court's initial probationary sentence was unlawful, we must vacate the subsequent sentences following revocation, which are "part of the penalty for the initial offense." Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000).

We therefore VACATE the sentences in each of these consolidated appeals and REMAND for resentencing on the offense of conviction in accordance with the mandatory minimum required by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).


Summaries of

United States v. Medrano

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 9, 2018
No. 15-50272 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018)
Case details for

United States v. Medrano

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALEX ROMERO MEDRANO, AKA…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 9, 2018

Citations

No. 15-50272 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018)