United States v. Guadalupe Flores , 525 F. App'x 915 ( 2013 )

Case: 13-10110 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10110
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00462-WSD-GGB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUADALUPE FLORES,
a.k.a. Guadalupe Salgado,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 9, 2013)
Before HULL, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-10110 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Guadalupe Flores appeals his 57-month sentence, imposed after he pled
guilty to the following charges: (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine; (2) possession with intent to distribute
cocaine; (3) possession with intent to distribute heroin; and (4) possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). Flores argues
that his sentence, imposed at the top-end of the advisory guidelines range, placed
an undue burden on him and his family while accomplishing “very little” with
respect to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
We review sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A sentence must be both procedurally
and substantively reasonable, id. at 51, though only the latter is at issue in this
appeal. In terms of substance, the district court is required to impose a sentence
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” set out in
§ 3553(a)(2). 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Reversal is only warranted “if we are left with
the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies
outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United
States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). The
party challenging the sentence bears the burden of establishing unreasonableness.
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005).
2
Case: 13-10110 Date Filed: 08/09/2013 Page: 3 of 3
Flores has not demonstrated that his 57-month total sentence was
substantively unreasonable. The sentence was supported by the § 3553(a) factors,
which the district discussed at length. The district court specifically cited to and
explained its consideration of Flores’s criminal history, the seriousness of the
instant offense, the need to provide criminal deterrence, and the need to avoid
sentencing disparities. Moreover, although Flores’s total sentence was at the top-
end of the applicable guidelines range, it nevertheless fell within that range and far
below the statutory maximum sentence of life imprisonment—indeed, the sentence
was well short of the mandatory-minimum prison term of 20 years. For these
reasons, we affirm Flores’s sentence as substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3