United States v. Aracelis Llanos , 383 F. App'x 856 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 17, 2010
No. 09-15390 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-20041-CR-JAL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARACELIS LLANOS,
a.k.a. Yvonne Rodriguez,
a.k.a. Sally,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 17, 2010)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Aracelis Llanos appeals her 18-month downward variance sentence imposed
following her guilty plea to making false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims on tax
returns, 18 U.S.C. § 287. Llanos asserts the district court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence because two other defendants—Providencia Llanos and
Caprice Battle—received only house arrest and probation instead of a custodial
sentence. She argues the district court did not comply with § 3553(a)(6), which
indicates one factor the court must consider is the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities. After review, we affirm Llanos’s sentence.1
In proving a court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence, the party
challenging that sentence “bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is
unreasonable in the light of both that record and the factors in section 3553(a).”
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). Though sentences
within the Guidelines are not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, the
Guidelines are considered to be “central to the sentencing process” and the
imposition of a sentence within the Guidelines is ordinarily expected to be
reasonable. Id. at 787-88.
Specifically, § 3553(a)(6) “addresses unwarranted sentence disparities
among federal defendants who are similarly situated . . . .” United States v.
1
The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008).
2
Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1102 (11th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, No. 09-7833 (U.S.
Apr. 5, 2010). Prior to the Supreme Court’s holding the Guidelines were advisory
in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), we held “[d]isparity between the
sentences imposed on codefendants is generally not an appropriate basis for relief
on appeal.” United States v. Regueiro, 240 F.3d 1321, 1325-26 (11th Cir. 2001).2
The district court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. Llanos was
responsible for a greater loss amount than Providencia or Battle. She also
shoplifted three days after pleading guilty and lied about it to her probation officer.
Under those circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing a custodial sentence because her situation was different and a different
sentence was warranted. Thus, we affirm Llanos’ sentence.
AFFIRMED.
2
In this case, the parties are not strictly codefendants. Although the parties appear to
have committed similar conduct under a similar set of facts, their cases were separate.
3