Nobody can help you when you reach the Big Court

CTA 5

United States v. Cruz (per curiam)

Cruz challenged his sentence on Booker and Fanfan grounds.  The court first rejects his argument that his sentence was enhanced based on judicial factfinding because the fact of drug quantity had been found by a jury, not the judge.  But, applying review for plain error, the court holds that there was Fanfan error because the district court applied the Guidelines in a mandatory fashion.  The difficulty defendants like Cruz seem to have in raising Fanfan challenges under plain error review is demonstrating prejudice.  One way he can do this is by pointing to a statement by the district court that demonstrates "a likelihood that he would have received a lesser sentence under an advisory application of the sentencing guidelines."  This standard was satisfied where the district court stated, "You finally made it to the big court and the big court is governed by the Sentencing Guidelines.  Nobody in this room can do anything for you."  Why the Southern District of Texas qualifies as "the big court," is anyone's guess.

Comments

[S.cotus]

Probably some member of the Federalist Society concluded that federal courts are somehow superior to state courts.