United States v. Roberto Carlos Cuellar ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 14-12369   Date Filed: 06/22/2015   Page: 1 of 10
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 14-12369
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cr-60299-WPD-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ROBERTO CARLOS CUELLAR,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (June 22, 2015)
    Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 14-12369     Date Filed: 06/22/2015    Page: 2 of 10
    Roberto Carlos Cuellar was convicted, after a jury trial, of one count of
    possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and was
    sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment. Cuellar appeals both his conviction and
    sentence. After review, we affirm.
    I. DISCUSSION
    A. Rule 16
    Cuellar first contends the district court should have granted his motion for
    mistrial, after the Government committed what Cuellar characterizes as a violation
    of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Cuellar asserts the only
    direct evidence tying him to the child pornography was his statements to the FBI,
    and his trial strategy was to attack the accuracy of the agents’ report of those
    statements. He argues the Government’s nondisclosure of his statement to the FBI
    that he refused to write or sign a statement was a discovery violation of Rule 16,
    and the violation attacked the foundation of his defense strategy and required a
    mistrial.
    Rule 16(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the
    government to disclose during discovery, upon the defendant’s request, “the
    substance of any relevant oral statement made by the defendant, before or after
    arrest, in response to interrogation by a person the defendant knew was a
    government agent if the government intends to use the statement at trial.” Even if
    2
    Case: 14-12369     Date Filed: 06/22/2015    Page: 3 of 10
    a Rule 16 violation occurred, however, we will not reverse unless the violation
    prejudiced a defendant’s substantial rights, meaning that actual prejudice must be
    shown. United States v. Chastain, 
    198 F.3d 1338
    , 1348 (11th Cir. 1999). “The
    actual prejudice will often turn on the strength of the Government case,” United
    States v. Rodriguez, 
    799 F.2d 649
    , 652 (11th Cir. 1986), but “the degree to which
    [a defendant’s trial] rights suffer as a result of a discovery violation is determined
    not simply by weighing all the evidence introduced, but rather by considering how
    the violation affected the defendant’s ability to present a defense,” United States v.
    Noe, 
    821 F.2d 604
    , 607 (11th Cir. 1987). “Substantial prejudice exists when a
    defendant is unduly surprised and lacks an adequate opportunity to prepare a
    defense, or if the mistake substantially influences the jury.” United States v.
    Camargo-Vergara, 
    57 F.3d 993
    , 998–99 (11th Cir. 1995).
    Assuming, arguendo, there was a Rule 16 violation, there was no substantial
    prejudice that would require reversal. See 
    Chastain, 198 F.3d at 1348
    . The
    strength of the Government’s case at trial was significant. Special Agent Dan
    Johns testified that agents found a laptop with child pornography and a disc of the
    Ares file-sharing program in Cuellar’s bedroom. At the FBI office, Cuellar
    provided the password for the computer and showed the agents where the child
    pornography files were in the library section of Ares, even though he denied
    downloading them. Johns’ investigation showed that Cuellar owned the laptop
    3
    Case: 14-12369    Date Filed: 06/22/2015    Page: 4 of 10
    since at least 2012, and the time-line analysis showed the computer was used to
    both view and download child pornography in 2013.
    Kimberly Aldunate, Cuellar’s roommate, testified the computer belonged to
    Cuellar, and she had never seen anyone else use it. Even though Cuellar had once
    given her the password, she had never used the computer.
    Yohel Diaz, the forensic computer expert, testified that the files were found
    in the “my shared folder” in Ares under the user name “Carlos.” One of these files
    included a video downloaded four days before agents executed the search warrant
    on Cuellar’s house. Similarly, searches for PTHC, or preteen hardcore content,
    had been made in Ares two days before agents executed the search warrant.
    As such, even without any of Cuellar’s statements to the agents, there was
    evidence the computer belonged to him, no one else used it, and someone whose
    user name was the same as Cuellar’s middle name had both downloaded child
    pornography four days before agents executed their search and searched for child
    pornography two days before the agents’ search.
    The types of substantial prejudice present in Noe and Camargo-Vergara are
    not present here. Unlike Noe, Cuellar was not unexpectedly forced to explain his
    presence after presenting his alibi, and unlike Camargo-Vergara, Cuellar was not
    unexpectedly forced to explain his apparent knowledge of drugs after emphasizing
    that he wanted nothing to do with them. 
    Noe, 821 F.2d at 607-08
    ; Camargo-
    4
    Case: 14-12369     Date Filed: 06/22/2015    Page: 5 of 10
    
    Vergara, 57 F.3d at 999
    . Cuellar argues his trial strategy was to attack the
    accuracy of what the FBI agents claimed he told them, which was the only direct
    evidence linking him to the child pornography. However, the other evidence
    against him was significant. Because Cuellar was not substantially prejudiced, the
    district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial.
    
    Chastain, 198 F.3d at 1348
    ; see also United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 
    479 F.3d 779
    , 782 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating we review the district court’s denial of a motion
    for mistrial for an abuse of discretion).
    B. Sentencing Enhancements
    Next, Cuellar asserts the district court improperly applied sentencing
    enhancements for sadistic content, distribution, use of a computer, and the number
    of images. He contends the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority in
    eliminating the intent requirement for violent depictions because it renders the
    enhancement arbitrary and because it violates due process. Cuellar argues the
    enhancement for distribution by definition requires a showing of intent because
    “distributing” means more than merely “making available.” He also asserts the
    enhancement for using a computer is double-counting, and the guideline used in
    this case was not created through the Sentencing Commission’s normal process
    and thus yields disproportionate results.
    5
    Case: 14-12369     Date Filed: 06/22/2015    Page: 6 of 10
    We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings; review de novo
    the district court’s legal interpretations of the sentencing guidelines, including
    rejection of double-counting challenges; and review de novo the district court’s
    application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts. United States v. Cubero, 
    754 F.3d 888
    , 892 (11th Cir.), cert. denied 
    135 S. Ct. 764
    (2014).
    Cuellar’s arguments are without merit. First the district court did not err in
    imposing the §2G2.2(b)(4) enhancement for sadistic or masochistic conduct.
    Cuellar does not dispute the files included sadistic content or that the Sentencing
    Guidelines do not require the Government to prove intent, see U.S.S.G. §2G2.2,
    comment. (n.2); rather, his sole argument is that the enhancement is
    unconstitutional without a finding of intent. But even if such a finding were still
    required, Cuellar’s intent could have been inferred from the file names themselves.
    Cf. United States v. Garrett, 
    190 F.3d 1220
    , 1224 (11th Cir. 1999) (concluding that
    intending to receive photographs that depicted young children who were vaginally
    and anally penetrated by adult men, as well as a photograph of a young girl who
    was vaginally penetrated by a glass bottle, was sufficient to meet the intent
    requirement of the sadistic content enhancement). Here, many of the file names
    included the abbreviation “PTHC,” indicating the files contained “preteen
    hardcore” content. Other files had similarly graphic titles that revealed their
    6
    Case: 14-12369      Date Filed: 06/22/2015    Page: 7 of 10
    content. As such, the district court did not err in applying the sadistic content
    enhancement.
    Second, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement for
    distribution. This Court has concluded the distribution enhancement can be
    applied when an offender uses a peer-to-peer file sharing program: “Allowing files
    to be accessed on the Internet by placing them in a file sharing folder is akin to
    posting material on a website for public viewing. When the user knowingly makes
    the files accessible to others, the distribution is complete.” United States v.
    Spriggs, 
    666 F.3d 1284
    , 1287 (11th Cir. 2012).
    Special Agent Johns testified that Cuellar installed Ares onto his computer.
    Johns explained that Ares users shared files out of their “my shared folder.” While
    the “my shared folder” was the default setting in Ares, it could be disabled by the
    user. Furthermore, the transfer screen in Ares showed both the files that were
    being downloaded as well as the files that were being shared to other users.
    Cuellar could have changed the settings in Ares to prevent file-sharing or could
    have saved the files in a folder not susceptible to file sharing, but he instead left the
    files in his shared folder accessible to other users. Cf. United States v. Vadnais,
    
    667 F.3d 1206
    , 1208-09 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting in dicta that a user could change
    the default settings or could remove the files from the shared folder). As such, the
    7
    Case: 14-12369   Date Filed: 06/22/2015    Page: 8 of 10
    district court did not err in applying the distribution enhancement. 
    Spriggs, 666 F.3d at 1287
    .
    Third, the district court did not err in applying the computer enhancement.
    This Court has concluded the sentencing enhancements under § 2G2.2 are meant to
    apply cumulatively, since § 2G2.2 is structured so that the range of harms
    associated with child pornography can be addressed through various offense level
    increases and decreases. 
    Cubero, 754 F.3d at 895
    (deciding in the context of
    § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F)). As such, Cuellar’s sentence did not constitute impermissible
    double-counting. See 
    id. Fourth, Cuellar’s
    final argument—that the pertinent guideline in this case
    was not created through the Sentencing Commission’s normal process and yields
    disproportionate recommendations—is likewise without merit. Despite Cuellar’s
    argument that Congress has directed that child pornography penalties be made
    hasher over the Sentencing Commission’s objection, the Supreme Court has noted
    that “the Commission is fully accountable to Congress, which can revoke or amend
    any or all of the Guidelines as it sees fit.” Mistretta v. United States, 
    488 U.S. 361
    ,
    393-94 (1989).
    C. Variance
    Finally, Cuellar argues the district court abused its discretion by not granting
    his motion for a downward variance. Cuellar argues the child pornography
    8
    Case: 14-12369    Date Filed: 06/22/2015    Page: 9 of 10
    guidelines are not the product of the Sentencing Commission’s usual empirically
    grounded procedures and thus are entitled to far less weight than the typical
    guideline provision under Kimbrough v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 85
    (2007).
    Because the district court sentenced Cuellar within that unreasonable range, his
    sentence was unreasonable.
    We review a sentence for abuse of discretion, using a two-step process.
    United States v. Pugh, 
    515 F.3d 1179
    , 1190 (11th Cir. 2008). We first ensure that
    the district court did not commit any significant procedural errors and, if none were
    made, then determine whether the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of
    the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. 
    Id. at 1190–
    91. The burden of establishing that a sentence is unreasonable lies with the party
    challenging the sentence. 
    Id. at 1189.
    Cuellar’s sole argument is that the guideline applicable to child pornography
    is not empirically grounded and that the district court should have exercised its
    discretion to impose a below-guidelines sentence under Kimbrough. We have
    already rejected a Kimbrough-type challenge to the child pornography guidelines,
    concluding that their history and nature distinguish them from the crack cocaine
    guidelines in Kimbrough. See 
    Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1201
    n.15. Furthermore,
    Kimbrough concluded that a district court may—but is not required to—deviate
    from the guidelines in a crack cocaine case because the crack/powder disparity
    9
    Case: 14-12369     Date Filed: 06/22/2015   Page: 10 of 10
    might yield a sentence greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of § 3553(a),
    not that the district court must lower a sentence when the guideline is not
    supported by empirical 
    data. 552 U.S. at 110
    .
    As such, Cuellar has failed to meet his burden in showing that his sentence
    was unreasonable, and we affirm his sentence. See 
    Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1189
    –92.
    II. CONCLUSION
    There was no substantial prejudice to Cuellar’s defense, and the district
    court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cuellar’s motion for mistrial.
    Furthermore, the district court did not err in using the sentencing enhancements to
    calculate the appropriate guidelines range. Finally, the district court did not abuse
    its discretion by denying Cuellar a downward variance, since the sentence imposed
    was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm
    Cuellar’s conviction and sentence.
    AFFIRMED.
    10