United States v. Juan Andres Sinisterra , 414 F. App'x 238 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 11, 2011
No. 10-12617 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:07-cr-00529-EAK-TBM-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN ANDRES SINISTERRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(February 11, 2011)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Andres Sinisterra appeals his 135-month total sentence, imposed after
he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or
more of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Sinisterra challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his
sentence. After thorough review, we affirm.
I.
Sinisterra challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. “We review
sentencing decisions only for abuse of discretion, and we use a two-step process.”
United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir. 2009). First, we “ensure
that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines
as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based
on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.”
Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)).
If we conclude that no procedural error occurred, “the second step is to review the
sentence’s ‘substantive reasonableness’ under the totality of the circumstances,
including ‘the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.’” Id. (quoting
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597). “If the district court’s sentence is within
the guidelines range, we expect that the sentence is reasonable.” United States v.
2
Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720, 735 (11th Cir. 2010); see also United States v.
Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Although we do not automatically
presume a sentence within the guidelines range is reasonable, we ‘ordinarily . . .
expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable.’” (quoting United
States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005)).
As for procedural error, Sinisterra contends that the district court failed to
adequately consider the § 3553(a) factors. His argument lacks merit. In imposing
its sentence, the district court stated that it had considered “the advisory
sentencing guidelines and all of the factors identified in Title 18 United States
Code Section 3353(a)(1) through (7).” The court’s acknowledgment that it had
considered the § 3553(a) factors “alone is sufficient in post-Booker sentences.”
United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). No procedural error
occurred.
Sinisterra also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his 135-month
sentence, which was at the lowest end of his advisory guidelines range of 135 to
168 months imprisonment. He contends that his sentence is unreasonable because
his involvement in the drug smuggling scheme was limited. Sinisterra actively
participated in the scheme to smuggle drugs into the United States. We cannot say
3
that his sentence, which was at the lowest end of his advisory guidelines range, is
unreasonable. See Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746.
AFFIRMED.
4