United States v. Rogelio Juarez-Rebollar , 428 F. App'x 900 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                              [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________                   FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-13817                ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    Non-Argument Calendar               JUNE 1, 2011
    ________________________               JOHN LEY
    CLERK
    D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cr-00022-RWS-SSC-6
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ROGELIO JUAREZ-REBOLLAR,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (June 1, 2011)
    Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Rogelio Juarez-Rebollar appeals his 78-month sentence, imposed after he
    pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to
    distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C § 846, one count of possession of cocaine with
    intent to distribute, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), and one count of illegal
    entry into the United States, in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1325
    (a).
    Juarez-Rebollar contends that his 78-month sentence is procedurally and
    substantively unreasonable. We disagree, and find that Juarez-Rebollar’s sentence
    is reasonable under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). At the sentencing hearing, the district court not only
    acknowledged that it considered the § 3553(a) factors, but explicitly discussed the
    co-defendant disparity issue. This is an adequate explanation for purposes of the
    procedural reasonableness inquiry. See United States v. Talley, 
    431 F.3d 784
    , 786
    (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
    In addition, the sentence fell at the low end of the applicable 78–97
    guideline range, and we ordinarily expect guideline sentences to be reasonable.
    
    Id. at 788
    . The record shows that the district court correctly calculated the
    guideline range, considered the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors, and considered
    Juarez-Rebollar’s personal circumstances. We also note that Juarez-Rebollar’s
    sentence was well below the statutory maximum of 30 years. See United States v.
    Valnor, 
    451 F.3d 744
    , 751–52 (11th Cir. 2006) (using the fact that a given
    sentence is significantly lower than the statutory maximum as an indicator of
    2
    reasonableness). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    concluding that a sentence at the low-end of the guidelines range was necessary to
    comply with the purposes of § 3553(a).
    Moreover, we have held that “[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) (per curiam). “While
    § 3553(a)(6) speaks of ‘the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities
    among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
    conduct,’ the provision is more concerned with the unjustified differences across
    judges or districts than between co-defendants in a single case.” United States v.
    Edinson, 209 F. App’x 947, 949 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting United
    States v. Boscarino, 
    437 F.3d 634
    , 638 (7th Cir. 2006)). Even if it were an
    appropriate basis for relief, Juarez-Rebollar has failed to show that his sentence
    was unreasonable when compared to the sentences of his co-defendants, especially
    because they were not similarly situated—most of his co-defendants gave
    substantial assistance to the government and received safety-valve reductions.
    Accordingly, Juarez-Rebollar’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively
    reasonable.
    AFFIRMED.
    3