United States v. James Ortiz-Castro , 182 F. App'x 972 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                           [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT                    FILED
    ________________________         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    June 5, 2006
    No. 05-16030                  THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                 CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 05-00053-CR-T-30TGW
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JAMES ORTIZ-CASTRO,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    _________________________
    (June 5, 2006)
    Before DUBINA, CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    James Ortiz-Castro appeals his 135-month sentence imposed for possession
    and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine
    while on board a vessel subject to United States jurisdiction in violation of 46
    U.S.C. App. § 1903(a), (g), (j), 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
     and 
    21 U.S.C. § 960
    (b)(1)(B)(ii).
    Ortiz contends that the court’s sentence was unreasonable under United States v.
    Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 264, 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    , 767 (2005), and that he should have
    received a sentence below the guidelines range because he provided law
    enforcement with valuable information. Ortiz also contends that the district court
    should have given more weight to his expressed remorse for his actions and the
    fact that he is a family man with no criminal history. He contends that he was
    transporting drugs to support his family in Colombia and that Colombia is a poor
    country that lacks a good welfare system.
    After Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    , a district court, in determining a
    reasonable sentence, must consider the correctly calculated sentencing range under
    the advisory guidelines and the factors set forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). United
    States v. Talley, 
    431 F.3d 784
    , 786 (11th Cir. 2005). Among the factors that a
    district court should consider at sentencing are the nature and circumstances of the
    offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for adequate
    deterrence and protection of the public, the pertinent Sentencing Commission
    policy statements, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See
    2
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(1)-(7). Booker does not require the district court to state on
    the record that it has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or even to
    discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Scott, 
    426 F.3d 1324
    , 1329
    (11th Cir. 2005). Instead, indications in the record that the district court
    considered facts and circumstances falling within § 3553(a)’s factors will suffice.
    Id. at 1329–30; Talley, 
    431 F.3d at 786
    .
    “Review for reasonableness is deferential. . . . and when the district court
    imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect
    that choice to be a reasonable one.” Talley, 
    431 F.3d at 788
    . “[T]he party who
    challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is
    unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a).”
    
    Id.
    We conclude that Ortiz’s 135-month sentence was reasonable. The district
    court considered Ortiz’s circumstances and awarded a two-level downward
    departure based on his substantial assistance to the government. The court
    sentenced Ortiz at the bottom of the correctly calculated guidelines range and well
    below the statutory maximum of life imprisonment. The court also explicitly
    stated at sentencing that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, and that the
    sentence was “sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the
    3
    statutory purposes of sentencing.”
    The offense involved possession with intent to distribute 1,170 kilograms of
    cocaine, and Ortiz had a substantial role in running and navigating the boat and
    recruiting and directing the crew. The sentence is reasonable in light of the nature
    and circumstances of the offense as well as the need for adequate deterrence and
    protection of the public. Ortiz’s remorse for his conduct, his alleged motivation to
    illegally transport drugs into the United States to help his family in Colombia, and
    his lack of criminal history combined do not make this sentence unreasonable.
    Because Ortiz has not met his burden of showing the sentence is unreasonable, and
    under our review is deferential, we affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-16030

Citation Numbers: 182 F. App'x 972

Judges: Carnes, Dubina, Hull, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 6/5/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023