Case: 18-10491 Date Filed: 08/29/2018 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10491
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-20705-KMM-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS ANGEL OROBIO ESTACIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 29, 2018)
Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-10491 Date Filed: 08/29/2018 Page: 2 of 5
Luis Angel Orobio Estacio appeals his 135-month concurrent sentences for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance while on
board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of
46
U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1) and 70506(b), and possession with intent to distribute a
controlled substance while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, in violation of
46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1) and
18 U.S.C. § 2. He
argues his sentences were substantively unreasonable because the 120-month
minimum sentence would have provided effective deterrence and similarly situated
defendants have received a downward variance to the statutory minimum.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The party
challenging the sentence bears the burden to show the sentence is unreasonable in
light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome,
611 F.3d
1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary to comply with the purposes” listed in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including
the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law,
provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the
public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
The court must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
2
Case: 18-10491 Date Filed: 08/29/2018 Page: 3 of 5
history and characteristics of the defendant.
Id. § 3553(a)(1). Additionally, the
court must consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. Id.
§ 3553(a)(6).
The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound
discretion of the district court. United States v. Clay,
483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir.
2007). A court can abuse its discretion when it fails to consider relevant factors
that were due significant weight, gives an improper or irrelevant factor significant
weight, or commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the proper factors
unreasonably. United States v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en
banc). The district court may not apply a presumption of reasonableness to the
sentencing guideline range and must actually consider the relevant statutory
factors. Nelson v. United States,
555 U.S. 350, 352 (2009). However, the district
court need not discuss each individual factor on the record. Irey,
612 F.3d at 1194-
95. Rather, it is sufficient for the district court to acknowledge that it has
considered the defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors. Id. We will
vacate a sentence only if the district court “committed a clear error in judgment in
weighing the § 3553(a) factors.” Id. at 1190.
Finally, although we do not presume that a sentence falling within the
guideline range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be
3
Case: 18-10491 Date Filed: 08/29/2018 Page: 4 of 5
reasonable. United States v. Hunt,
526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). A sentence
imposed at the bottom of the guideline range and well below the statutory
maximum penalty further indicates reasonableness. See United States v. Croteau,
819 F.3d 1293, 1310 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding the sentence was reasonable in part
because it was well below the statutory maximum); United States v. Carpenter,
803 F.3d 1224, 1234 (11th Cir. 2015) (considering a sentence being “at the very
bottom” of the guideline range a factor indicating reasonableness). While a district
court may use its discretion to grant a downward variance from the guideline
range, it has no obligation to do so. Carpenter, 803 F.3d at 1235.
Here, Estacio’s guidelines range was 135-160 months. Estacio argues that
the presentencing investigation report (“PSR”) noted that similar defendants
received a downward variance to the statutory minimum sentence of 120 months
and asserts that he should have received such a sentence. He further contends that
a 120-month sentence would provide the same level of deterrence as the 135-
month sentence the court imposed.
We cannot say that the district court’s sentence was substantively
unreasonable. Though the PSR mentioned that similar defendants have received
15-month downward variances, neither the PSR nor Estacio provided specific
information about any similarly situated defendants who received the statutory
minimum sentence. And before sentencing Estacio, the district court had already
4
Case: 18-10491 Date Filed: 08/29/2018 Page: 5 of 5
sentenced one of his similarly situated codefendants to 135 months’ imprisonment.
So Estacio’s sentence was not disparate with the only similarly situated individual
specifically identified.
As for Estacio’s argument that 120 months would have provided sufficient
deterrence, the district court concluded that the offense conduct was serious, and
the sentence would provide both sufficient deterrence and punishment.
In short, the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable
sentence when it sentenced Estacio to 135-month concurrent sentences at the
bottom of the guideline range because it considered deterrence along with the other
§ 3553(a) factors, such as the seriousness of the offense, and Estacio did not
provide proof of similarly situated defendants receiving a downward variance to
the 120-month statutory minimum.
AFFIRMED.
5
