WPC3 .C`F#g[^•Fq_IINtpLy1-Uvj[כޛ$f2/wY"-~Q[;_blyT?źsD@J.bwsư(:+(ÿ:M=i)wzC8f~@R{({3p3a?‚OxR2>t@m{+˫DW=}5qGAtړanh)̖ρ%Uw`t3D_H!NݕZўau絰TQ z.#2nmǍz7穷9-_*4臓;9(NJv3v-a;V /Zic|j}=(Ms'x^sRT/z<.TޑBY"=ɳBU4Eؕسk,J5)mMAG`"xΛ!@3(>UNd % 0X=fajN B UB4 wv 4z  0 ^ | # Q ^S 0E` mbyUN B B* B(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(]$x  c:\office\wpwin\template\legal\pleading.wptTABLE APleading Paper  '  0 .    d. `*Times New RomanTTh0`3|x(*2X$ !x        0  0 \\OSU-LAW_TREE\room326_lj5simx,,,,0 T b,x   d     d xXA)) 3^dE02AA() 3^^dEt&2A  , == 1    , == 2 6   , == 3     , == 4 B    , == 5     , == 6 N     , == 7  $    , == 8 Z    , == 9 0    ,  10 f    ,  11 <   ,  12 r   ,  13 H   ,  14 ~   ,  15 T   ,  16    ,  17 `    ,  18 "   ,  19  l$   ,  20 !&   ,  21 (#x(   ,  22 $*   ,  23 4&!,   ,  24 ' #.   ,  25 @)$0   ,  26 *&2   ,  27 L,'4   ,  28(3b$ !x     d U (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular d&0 d d  d !x    _! x X!  <  PAULK.CHARLTON  UnitedStatesAttorney B DistrictofArizona $ JOSEPHE.KOEHLER H AssistantU.S.Attorney  ArizonaStateBar013288 l 40N.CentralAve.,Ste.1200  Phoenix,Arizona85004 @  Telephone(602)5147500  "  #Ag<#@GG/G  UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 3  @&GDISTRICTOFARIZONA   *(ddd Xdd Xdd Xx&x&,dd ,dd +  '()? ?  'UnitedStatesofAmerica,   0 4 0 4 4 Plaintiff,)y   0 4 v.4 4  AntonioRamirezMartinez, 5 0 4 0 4 4 Defendant. :0"   () :AgAg  No.CR04387PHXMHM#AgAg# f   AgAgXxvXAgGOVERNMENTSMEMORANDUM <  REGARDINGSENTENCINGINLIGHT ! OFBLAKELYv.WASHINGTON#XxvXXXxv ##AgXXxv+# 1'%r"  1  TheUnitedStates,throughundersignedcounsel,respectfullysubmitsitsmemorandum q# regardingtheapplicabilityofBlakelyv.Washington,2004WL1402697(June24,2004),tothe G% defendantssentenceinthiscase. }'   First,itistheGovernmentspositionthatthedecisioninBlakelydoesnotapplytothe S) FederalSentencingGuidelines. TheFederalGuidelinesarenotbeforeus,andweexpressno + opiniononthem.Id.at*7.SignificantdistinctionsexistbetweentheWashingtonsystemand !_- thefederalGuidelinesthatjustifytreatingthemdifferentlyforpurposesofApprendiv.New "/ Jersey,530U.S.466(2000).Mostobviously,unliketheWashingtonsystem,thefederal $k1 GuidelinesarenotenactedbyalegislaturebutarepromulgatedbytheSentencingCommission, % 3 "anindependentcommissioninthejudicialbranchoftheUnitedStates."28U.S.C.991(a);see ''w"5 Mistrettav.UnitedStates,488U.S.361,385(1989).TheGuidelinesarenotstatutes;rather,they (#7 arebutsentencingrules,theuniqueproductofaspecialandlimiteddelegationofauthorityto 3*%9 theCommission."CongressgrantedtheCommissionsubstantialdiscretioninformulating + '; guidelines."Id.at377.BecauseCongressentrustedtotheCommissionthespecificationofthe ?-(= numerousfactsthatauthorizedifferingpunishmentsundertheGuidelines,theGuidelinesdonot  implicatetheconcernsaddressedbyApprendi.Thoseconcernsariseonlywhenthelegislature 6 itselfdictatesthefactsthatcontroladefendant'sincreasedexposuretopunishment,thereby   effectivelycreatingenhancedcrimes.SeeApprendi,530U.S.at490.Thus,theGuidelines"do B  not...establish[]minimumandmaximumpenalties"forcrimes.Mistretta,488U.S.at396.     AnothersignificantdifferencebetweentheWashingtonsystemandthefederalGuidelines N   alsosuggeststhefederalGuidelinesdonotestablishstatutorymaximaforcriminaloffenses.The  $  Washingtonsystemsetsstandardsentencingrangesbasedonthe"actualcrimeofconviction" Z  (andthedefendant'scriminalhistory).SeeWash.GuidelinesManual9.94A.320andcomment. 0  Inthefederalsystem,theoffenseofconvictiondictatesthestatutorymaximumsentencebutdoes f  notdictateadefendant'ssentencingrange.Instead,thedistrictjudgemakesawidevarietyof < factualdeterminationstakingintoaccountnotonlytheconductthatconstitutestheoffensebut r allofthedefendant'sconductrelevanttotheoffense.SeeUnitedStatesv.Watts,519U.S.148, H 15456(1997)(sentencingcourtscantakeintoaccountacquittedconductinimposingsentence ~ underfederalSentencingGuidelines);Wittev.UnitedStates,515U.S.389,40103(1995) T (sentencingcourtscantakeintoaccountunchargedconductinimposingsentenceunderfederal  SentencingGuidelines).Thosedeterminationsresultinanoffenselevel,which,alongwiththe `  defendant'scriminalhistoryscore,producesthepresumptivesentencingrange.SeeNicholsv. " UnitedStates,511U.S.738,740n.3(1994). [S]entencingenhancementsdonotpunisha  l$ defendantforcrimesofwhichhewasnotconvicted,butratherincreasehissentencebecauseof !& themannerinwhichhecommittedthecrimeofconviction.Watts,519U.S.at154."[V]ery (#x( roughlyspeaking,[relevantconduct]correspondstothoseactionsandcircumstancesthatcourts $* typicallytookintoaccountwhensentencingpriortotheGuidelines'enactment."Witte,515U.S. 4&!, at402.BecausetheSentencingGuidelinestonotprescribestatutorymaxima,butratherguide ' #. ajudgesdiscretionwhenimposingsentencebelowastatutorymaximum,theydonotfallwithin @)$0 thescopeofBlakely. *&2   Second,evenifthisCourtweretofindthatBlakelyappliestotheSentencingGuidelines L,'4 ingeneral,thisCourtshouldfindthatitdoesnotapplytothefactsofthiscase.InAgAgAlmendarez -")6 Torresv.UnitedStates,523U.S.224(1998),#AgAg$#theSupremeCourtAgAgsquarelyrejectedthenotion  thatapriorconvictionisanelementundersection1326(b)(2)thatmustbeprovenbeyonda 6 reasonabledoubt.Id.at239.#AgAg#AgAgInApprendiv.NewJersey,#AgAg#530U.S.466(2000)AgAg,theCourt   expresslydeclinedtooverruleAlmendarezTorres.Id.at48990.#AgAgN#TheCourtinBlakelyreiterated B  therulefromApprendithat [o]therthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreases   thepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury, N   andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.Blakely,2004WL1402697at*4(citingApprendi,530  $  U.S.at490(2000).Here,theonlyincreaseintheDefendantssentencewouldbebasedonhis Z  priorfelonyconviction,whichispermissiblepursuanttoApprendiandBlakely. 0    Third,evenifthisCourtfindsthatBlakelyappliestotheFederalSentencingGuidelines f  andtopriorconvictions,thefactsofthepresentcasearedistinguishablefromthereasoningin < Blakely.InBlakely,thedefendantpledguiltytoseconddegreekidnapping,andthejudgethen r wentoutsidethefactscontainedinthefactualbasisandincreasedthedefendantssentencebased H onajudicialdeterminationthatthedefendant hadactedwithdeliberatecruelty.Blakely, ~ 2004WL1402697at*3. T   Inthepresentcase,theonlyenhancementtheDefendanthasreceivedinthepresentence  report(PSR)isthesixteenlevelenhancementforhisprioraggravatedfelonyconviction.The `  Defendantadmittedtohavingthispriorconvictioninthefactualbasisofhispleaagreement. " ShouldtheCourtsentencetheDefendantconsistentlywithhispleaagreementandthe  l$ recommendationsinthePSR,theCourtwouldnotbemakinganyfactualdeterminationonits !& own,asthesentencingjudgeinBlakelycasedid.Instead,thisCourtwouldsimplybesentencing (#x( theDefendantconsistentlywithhisadmissionsinthefactualbasisandhisexpectationsbased $* onhiswrittenpleaagreementwiththeGovernment.Sentencingthedefendantbasedonhis 4&!, admissionsisentirelyconsistentwithBlakely.Id.at*4( Ourprecedentsmakeclear,however, ' #. thatthestatutorymaximumforApprendipurposesisthemaximumsentenceajudgemay @)$0 imposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythe *&2  defendant.). L,'4   Basedontheforegoing,theGovernmentrespectfullyrequeststhisCourtsentencethe   Defendantinamannerconsistentwithhiswrittenpleaagreementandtherecommendations 6 containedinthePSR.   К  Respectfullysubmittedthis_____dayofJuly,2004. B       PAULK.CHARLTON        UnitedStatesAttorney         DistrictofArizona N        JosephE.Koehler Z       AssistantU.S.Attorney m  <AgCopyoftheforegoingfaxedandmailed )y this_____dayofJuly,2004,to: < DeborahEulerAjayi r  <<AssistantFederalPublicDefender 5 850WestAdams,Suite201 H Phoenix,Arizona85007#< <+##Ag