United States v. Jose Manuel Rodriguez Santana , 678 F. App'x 875 ( 2017 )

Case: 15-14165 Date Filed: 02/01/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14165
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20060-JAL-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE MANUEL RODRIGUEZ SANTANA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 1, 2017)
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-14165 Date Filed: 02/01/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Jose Manuel Rodriguez Santana appeals his 63-month total sentence
imposed at the low end of the guideline range after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to possess stolen goods worth $5,000 or more and to possess stolen goods worth
$1,000 or more that constituted an interstate shipment of freight, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 371, 2315, and 659, possession of stolen goods worth $5,000 or more, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2315 and 2, and possession of stolen goods worth $1,000
or more that constituted an interstate shipment of freight, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 659 and 2. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, 1 we affirm
Santana’s sentence.
I. DISCUSSION
Santana contends that the district court erroneously relied on his admissions
during his plea colloquy to determine the total loss amount for sentencing purposes
rather than requiring the government to prove the loss amount at sentencing. We
need not decide whether the district court erred in this respect, however, because
such error, if there was one, was harmless in this case.
When a district court indicates that it would impose the same sentence even
if it is ultimately proved wrong on a disputed guidelines issue, we need not decide
the guidelines issue if the sentence is otherwise reasonable. United States v.
1
Though ordinarily we review a district court’s interpretation and application of the loss-
amount guideline de novo and its loss-amount calculation for clear error, United States v.
Machado, 333 F.3d 1225, 1227 (11th Cir. 2003), we do not undertake that analysis in this case
for the reasons stated below.
2
Case: 15-14165 Date Filed: 02/01/2017 Page: 3 of 4
Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1348–49 (11th Cir. 2006). If the district court reasonably
decides that a sentence is appropriate based upon the § 3553 factors regardless of
the guideline range, any error in calculating the guidelines range is harmless.
United States v. Lozano, 490 F.3d 1317, 1324–25 (11th Cir. 2007); 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a).
Here, the district court expressly stated that “even if the Defendant was held
accountable for less of the value of the stolen merchandise, . . . if in fact he didn’t
receive the 18-level increase but received the 16-level increase, that would bring
him to a level 24, 51 to 63 months. And I find that, given the estimate of loss as
well as the Defendant’s involvement in this case, that a sentence even at level 24
should be 63 months.” The 63-month sentence Santana received would have still
fallen within his Guidelines range even if the alleged calculation errors were
rectified. The district court undertook a lengthy and thorough review of the
§ 3553(a) factors in determining Santana’s sentence and fully enunciated its
reasons for considering Santana’s crime a serious “violation of the social contract
of commerce in our community” warranting a 63-month sentence. See Gall, 552
U.S. at 50 (“[The district court] must adequately explain the chosen sentence to
allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair
sentencing.”); United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en
banc) (“A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to afford
3
Case: 15-14165 Date Filed: 02/01/2017 Page: 4 of 4
consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives
significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error
of judgment in considering the proper factors.”) (quotation omitted). Indeed,
Santana does not argue the sentence was unreasonable under the lower Guidelines
range. Even if the court erred in calculating his Guidelines range, therefore, that
error would have been harmless because the sentence was reasonable even under
the lower Guidelines range that would have resulted. Assuming Santana’s crime
warranted the lower offense level, the record still would not leave a “definite and
firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
weighing the § 3553(a) factors.” Id. (quotation omitted).
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district court did not err in sentencing Santana
to 63 months’ imprisonment.
AFFIRMED.
4