U.S. v. Sierra-Mendez

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ADOLFO SIERRA-MENDEZ, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle

Date published: Feb 1, 2006

CASE NO. CR03-0430C (W.D. Wash. Feb. 1, 2006)

Opinion

CASE NO. CR03-0430C.

February 1, 2006

ORDER

JOHN COUGHENOUR, District Judge

This matter has come before the Court on the Ninth Circuit's limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9^th Cir. 2005). ( See Dkt. No. 46.) In Ameline, the Ninth Circuit directed district courts to answer the threshold question of whether the sentence imposed on a defendant would have been materially different had the court been aware that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, rather than mandatory. Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1084. The scope of the initial inquiry permitted by Ameline does not authorize the Court to address the question of whether Defendant was eligible for the safety valve. Id. at 1085 (explaining that the court is allowed to take a fresh look at the facts in resentencing the defendant, after and if the threshold question is answered in the affirmative).

In the case at bar, Defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of sixty months. The Guidelines calculations resulted in a sentencing range of 57 to 71 months. Because of the congruence between the Guidelines calculation and the mandatory minimum of 60 months, the Court did not increase the length of Defendant's sentence. Therefore, whether the Guidelines were advisory or mandatory had no effect on Defendant's sentence. Accordingly, the Court finds that the sentence imposed on Defendant would not have been materially different.

SO ORDERED.