Unpublished Disposition, 895 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 895 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1990)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Jose ZAMORANO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 89-50198.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 1, 1990.* Decided Feb. 7, 1990.

Before NELSON, BRUNETTI, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Appellant Jose Zamorano-Ramirez pled guilty to aiding and abetting the importation of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 21 U.S.C. § 960(a). The district court sentenced him to ten years, which the court apparently believed to be the minimum mandatory sentence required by 21 U.S.C. § 960(b) (1) (B).

21 U.S.C. § 960(b) (1) (B) states, in pertinent part:

(b) Penalties

(1) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving--

(B) 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of

.............................................................

...................

* * *

(ii) cocaine....

The person committing such violation shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years and not more than life....

Appellant's contention that the trial court erred when it interpreted Sec. 960(b) (1) (B) as requiring a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years is without merit. The plain language of the section requires a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years for an offense in violation of Sec. 960(a) involving 5 kilograms or more of cocaine.

Where a statute is plain and unambiguous on its face, as appellant concedes Sec. 960(b) (1) (B) is, we will ordinarily not look to legislative intent to determine the statute's meaning. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 n. 29 (1978). Appellant presents no authority for his argument that his case is unusual and requires resort to legislative history simply because he is a first time offender, a low level participant in the drug scheme and a father of two. Accordingly, the district court did not err in sentencing appellant to the minimum mandatory sentence required by the statute.1 

Appellant's mandatory 10 year sentence does not violate the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Hoyt, 879 F.2d 505, 512-515 (9th Cir. 1989). The penalty imposed here meets the proportionality requirements of Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), because the importation of 139.3 kilograms of cocaine is a serious offense, federal statutes impose similar penalties for other serious federal crimes, and other jurisdictions also impose mandatory minimum sentences for similar crimes. See United States v. Cook, 859 F.2d 777, 778-79 (9th Cir. 1988). Appellant's status as a first time offender and a low level participant in the drug importation scheme does not change this result. See Hoyt, 879 F.2d at 513; Cook, 859 F.2d at 779.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3

 1

Since appellant was not sentenced under the sentencing guidelines, his argument regarding 18 U.S.C. § 3553's relation to the sentencing guidelines is moot

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.