United States v. Carlos Gomez-Carreno ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 29, 2007
No. 07-11897 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00061-CR-OC-10-GRJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS GOMEZ-CARRENO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 29, 2007)
Before BARKETT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Gomez-Carreno appeals his 78-month concurrent sentences for
conspiracy to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Gomez-Carreno first argues that he was entitled to a minor role reduction in his
total sentence under § 3B1.2(b) because he played only the minor role of driving
the van with cocaine, and because his role was subordinate to other members of the
conspiracy. Second, he argues that the district court imposed a procedurally
unreasonable sentence because (1) it improperly presumed that a sentence within
the guidelines range was reasonable, which placed a burden on him to overcome
that presumption, thereby rendering the guidelines mandatory, in violation of
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)1,
and (2) it failed to consider his cooperation with authorities regarding other
participants in the drug conspiracy, a relevant factor in his sentencing.
We affirm. First, the record demonstrates that the district court did not
clearly err in denying Gomez-Carreno’s request for a minor role reduction as
Gomez-Carreno was not a minor participant in the drug transaction for which he
was held responsible, and he was not substantially less culpable than the other
participants in the transaction.
1
Gomez-Carreno challenges only the procedural reasonableness of his total sentence,
because he argues that the district court’s sentencing procedure, in considering the § 3553(a)
factors and his arguments, was unreasonable. He never argues that his 78-month total sentence
is substantively unreasonable, in light of all the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
2
Second, the record does not support Gomez-Carreno’s argument that the
district court presumed that a sentence within the guidelines range was reasonable.
We are satisfied that the district court adequately considered the statutory
sentencing factors and the record shows that the district court properly considered
his argument regarding his cooperation with authorities. Gomez-Carreno fails to
demonstrate that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3