United States v. Lara-Ruiz, No. 13-3509 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseRuiz pleaded guilty to improper entry into the U.S., 8 U.S.C. 1325(a), and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The government agreed not to prosecute other methamphetamine offenses except those involving violence. Ruiz was later charged in a multi-defendant, 15-count indictment with other drug crimes, plus possession of a firearm in furtherance of, and use of a firearm related to, a drug-trafficking crime. Based on the plea, the court dismissed the drug charges. The jury found that Ruiz had received guns in exchange for drugs and guilty of "use" of a firearm. The Eighth Circuit vacated the possession conviction and affirmed the “use” conviction. On remand, the court determined that the seven-year statutory minimum for brandishing applied, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and imposed a 300-month sentence. The Eighth Circuit again remanded because the Supreme Court had decided, in Alleyne v. United States, that any fact that increases the mandatory statutory minimum penalty is an “element” that must be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court resentenced Ruiz to 300 months, stating that Ruiz had acted in a very “frightening” manner, discussing factors from 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and reiterating that whether “this is a five-year mandatory minimum or seven-year mandatory minimum, my sentence would still be the same.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The sentence, although high, is not unconstitutional or unreasonable.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. For the court's prior opinions in the case, see U.S.v. Lara-Ruiz, 681 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2012 and U.S. v. Lara-Ruiz,721 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2013). On remand for resentencing under Alleyne, the district court applied the correct mandatory minimum and properly considered the 3553(a) factors; while defendant's sentence of 300 months was high compared to national sentences for the offense, it was neither unconstitutional nor unreasonable
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.