United States v. Jesus Manuel Clark-Castaneda , 468 F. App'x 943 ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14812 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 20, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cr-00047-LC-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESUS MANUEL CLARK-CASTANEDA,
a.k.a. Jesus Clark,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(June 20, 2012)
Before EDMONDSON, WILSON, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Manuel Clark-Castaneda appeals his sentence of 136 months in prison
after pleading guilty to conspiracy and possession of cocaine. On appeal, Clark-
Castaneda argues that his within-guidelines sentence was substantively
unreasonable due to disparities with the sentences received by his co-defendants
which ranged from 48 months to 180 months. Clark-Castaneda was charged in the
indictment along with four other co-defendants, including Jose Guadalupe-
Gutierrez. He argues that Guadalupe-Gutierrez only received a sentence of 120
months of imprisonment even though they both were similarly situated.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591
(2007). “A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to afford
consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives
significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error
of judgment in considering the proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d
1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct.
1813 (2011). “[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of
establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both that record and
the factors in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788
(11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The § 3553(a) factors include “the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who
have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
2
Clark-Castaneda has not shown that there was an unwarranted disparity
between his sentence and Guadalupe-Gutierrez’s sentence. They were not
similarly situated. Guadalupe-Gutierrez received a 3-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility, which Clark-Castaneda did not, and had a lower
advisory guideline range as a result. Clark-Castaneda’s pre-sentence investigation
report reflects that he pled guilty on the day of trial after a jury had been selected.
Therefore, he did not accept responsibility for his actions. Furthermore, he failed
to discuss the facts of the case during the pre-sentence report interview.
Upon review of the record, we find that the district court did not impose an
unreasonable sentence because it correctly applied the guidelines and adequately
considered all the sentencing factors in imposing a within-guidelines sentence.
“[W]hen 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.
We find no abuse of discretion in determining Clark-Castaneda’s sentence
and conclude that the sentence was substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3