Case: 16-16058 Date Filed: 04/12/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16058
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20007-MGC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL ARCANGEL HERNANDEZ,
a.k.a. Mike
a.k.a. Mickey
a.k.a. Manu
a.k.a. Manuel Cifuentes,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 12, 2019)
Case: 16-16058 Date Filed: 04/12/2019 Page: 2 of 4
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Arcangel Hernandez appeals his 120-month total sentence, imposed
above the Sentencing Guideline sentence range, after pleading guilty to multiple
counts of racketeering and importation of an alien for prostitution. He argues that
the District Court erred by failing to adequately apply the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing purposes and in refusing his request for a downward variance. He also
contends that his sentence creates a sentencing disparity because similarly-situated
defendants received significantly less prison time, and there were no aggravating
circumstances that warranted his above-guideline sentence.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The party
challenging the sentence bears the burden to show it is unreasonable in light of the
record and the § 3553(a) sentencing purposes. United States v. Tome,
611 F.3d
1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
We employ a two-step process in reviewing the reasonableness of a
sentence. United States v. Pugh,
515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008). We look
first at whether the district court committed any significant procedural error and
then at whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances.
Tome, 611 F.3d at 1378. The district court must impose a sentence
2
Case: 16-16058 Date Filed: 04/12/2019 Page: 3 of 4
sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of
§ 3553(a)(2), which include the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter criminal
conduct, and protect the public from future criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). In imposing a particular sentence, the court must also consider the
nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable guideline range, the
pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims.
Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
The district court need not address all the § 3553(a) purposes; rather, an
acknowledgement that it has considered the defendant’s arguments and the
§ 3553(a) purposes will suffice. United States v. Gonzalez,
550 F.3d 1319, 1324
(11th Cir. 2008). We will defer to the district court's judgment regarding the
weight given to the § 3553(a) purposes unless the district court has made a clear
error of judgment and has imposed a sentence that lies outside the range of
reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.
Id.
We hold that Hernandez’s 120-month sentence is substantively reasonable.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The district court stated on the record that it had considered
the advisory guideline sentence range of 87-108 months’ imprisonment, the §
3
Case: 16-16058 Date Filed: 04/12/2019 Page: 4 of 4
3553(a) purposes, and the parties’ arguments, and found that the sentence range
was not adequate in light of those § 3553(a) purposes. At sentencing, the district
court considered the violence towards two women who were working for
Hernandez and the fact that he had employed a minor for commercial sex acts.
The court also considered Hernandez’s argument as to the potential sentencing
disparity. Thus, Hernandez has not met his burden on appeal in light of the record
and the purposes of sentencing set out in § 3553(a).
Tome, 611 F.3d at 1378. The
sentence is reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4
