Case: 17-13807 Date Filed: 04/12/2018 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13807
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cr-00097-EAK-TBM-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS ALFREDO PARRALES BRAVO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 12, 2018)
Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After pleading guilty, Luis Alfredo Parrales Bravo (“Parrales Bravo”)
appeals his 135-month total sentence for conspiring to possess and possessing with
Case: 17-13807 Date Filed: 04/12/2018 Page: 2 of 8
intent to distribute cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, in violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act
(“MDLEA”), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a)-(b), and 21 U.S.C.
§ 960(b)(1)(B)(ii). On appeal, Bravo argues that his total 135-month sentence, at
the low end of the advisory guidelines range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment,
was substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to vary downward
in order to avoid imposing disparate sentences between himself and his
codefendant, Edwin Darwin Quintero Bravo (“Quintero Bravo”), who was
sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
A. Offense Conduct
On February 23, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted a vessel in
international waters off the coast of the Galapagos Islands. After boarding the
boat, Coast Guard officers recovered 46 bales of cocaine, totaling 1,100 kilograms
in weight. The Coast Guard officers interviewed and detained the crewmembers,
which included defendant Parrales Bravo, and (1) Quintero Bravo; (2) Walberto
Cuero Cortes; and (3) Francisco Rodriguez Barajas (“Barajas”).
B. Indictment and Pleas
All of the crewmembers were charged together under the MDLEA with one
count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
2
Case: 17-13807 Date Filed: 04/12/2018 Page: 3 of 8
cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and
one count of possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine
while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The four
codefendants were indicted on March 7, 2017.
In May 2017, all four codefendants entered guilty pleas. Three of the
codefendants—Quintero Bravo, Barrajas, Cortes—pled guilty, pursuant to written
plea agreements, to the cocaine conspiracy count and, in exchange, the government
agreed to dismiss the cocaine possession count. In their plea agreements, the three
codefendants also agreed to cooperate with the government, and the government
agreed to consider each codefendant’s cooperation and, if warranted, to file a
motion recommending a sentence reduction based on the codefendant’s substantial
assistance. Defendant Parrales Bravo, however, pled guilty to both counts of the
indictment and did so without the benefit of a written plea agreement.
At their plea hearing, all four codefendants admitted that they had entered
into a plan to smuggle more than five kilograms of cocaine by sea and that the U.S.
Coast Guard had intercepted them in international waters on a vessel with
multiples bales of cocaine, totaling in excess of five kilograms. The four
codefendants also all agreed that no crew member identified himself as the master
of the vessel, but that one crew member had said that the vessel had departed from
Ecuador.
3
Case: 17-13807 Date Filed: 04/12/2018 Page: 4 of 8
C. Sentencing of Defendant Parrales Bravo
At defendant Parrales Bravo’s sentencing, the district court, without
objection, (1) calculated defendant Parrales Bravo’s base offense level of 38,
pursuant to US.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1), because his offense involved 1,100 kilograms
of cocaine; (2) decreased the offense level by 2 levels, pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(17),
because he met the safety-valve criteria in § 5C1.2; and (3) decreased the offense
level by another 3 levels, pursuant to § 3E1.1(a) and (b), for acceptance of
responsibility, which resulted in a total offense level of 33. With total offense
level of 33 and a criminal history category of I, the district court determined that
the advisory guidelines range was 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment.
Defendant Parrales Bravo asked the district court to vary downward to a
120-month sentence, arguing that he was “virtually identical to other crew
members” in the case based on his background, upbringing, and education and that
his role as a “standard crewman” was “less than Mr. Quintero Bravo who was
sentenced [that] morning to 120 months.” Defendant Parrales Bravo asked for his
total sentence to equal Quintero Bravo’s 120-month sentence “in order to avoid an
unwarranted sentence disparity, between people who are similarly charged, [and]
committed similar offenses.”
The district court denied defendant Parrales Bravo’s request for a downward
variance, stressing that codefendants Barrajas and Quintero Bravo received lower
4
Case: 17-13807 Date Filed: 04/12/2018 Page: 5 of 8
sentences because of their cooperation with the government and it was appropriate
for Parrales Bravo, like his “fellow crewmember” codefendant Cortes, to receive a
135-month sentence. The district court thus imposed concurrent 135-month
sentences on each count.
II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41,
128 S. Ct.
586, 591 (2007). We first ensure that the district court made no significant
procedural error, then examine whether the sentence was substantively reasonable
in light of the totality of the circumstances.
Id. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597; see also
United States v. Pugh,
515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008).1 The party
challenging the sentence bears the burden to show that the sentence was
unreasonable in light of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United
States v. Tome,
611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). 2 We will reverse only if
“left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear
1
Parrales Bravo does not argue that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable.
2
The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for
deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the
Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission;
(9) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution
to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
5
Case: 17-13807 Date Filed: 04/12/2018 Page: 6 of 8
error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that
lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.”
United States v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation
marks omitted).
In imposing a particular sentence, one of the factors the district court
considers is the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The purpose of this factor is to avoid such disparities
“among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
criminal conduct.” United States v. Docampo,
573 F.3d 1091, 1102 (11th Cir.
2009) (quotation marks omitted). Therefore, “[a] well-founded claim of disparity
. . . assumes that apples are being compared to apples.”
Id. at 1101 (quotations
omitted); see also United States v. Spoerke,
568 F.3d 1236, 1252 (11th Cir. 2009)
(explaining that sentencing disparities are not “unwarranted” if the comparators are
not similarly situated). In United States v. Williams,
526 F.3d 1312, 1324 (11th
Cir. 2008), we concluded that codefendants who received disparate sentences were
not similarly situated where one of the defendants received a shorter sentence
because he had cooperated with government.
III. PARRALES BRAVO’S SENTENCE
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 135-month total
sentence. Parrales Bravo’s sentence was well below the statutory maximum life
6
Case: 17-13807 Date Filed: 04/12/2018 Page: 7 of 8
sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) and at the low end of the advisory
guidelines range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment, both of which are
indications the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Croteau,
819 F.3d
1293, 1309-10 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,
137 S. Ct. 254 (2016).
Contrary to Parrales Bravo’s contention, the 15-month disparity between his
135-month sentence and Quintero Bravo’s 120-month sentence did not render
Parrales Bravo’s sentence substantively unreasonable. Specifically, the two
defendants were not similarly situated where codefendant Quintero Bravo entered
into a plea agreement in which he agreed to cooperate with the government and in
fact provided information to the government.
Defendant Parrales Bravo, on the other hand, pled guilty without a plea
agreement and did not agree to cooperate with the government in exchange for a
possible sentence reduction. Defendant Parrales Bravo did admit to his own
conduct in the drug smuggling venture as part of his guilty plea and received a 3-
level reduction for acceptance of responsibility as a result. But, there is no
evidence in the record that defendant Parrales Bravo provided any additional
information to the government that they did not already have. In fact, the district
court pointed out that defendant Parrales Bravo was more similar to codefendant
Cortes, who, like Parrales Bravo, did not provide the government with information
beyond his own guilty plea, and received a 135-month sentence.
7
Case: 17-13807 Date Filed: 04/12/2018 Page: 8 of 8
Given that codefendant Quintero Bravo received a downward variance for
his cooperation, the 15-month disparity between defendant Parrales Bravo’s
sentence and Quintero Bravo’s sentence was not “unwarranted.” See
Docampo,
573 F.3d at 1102;
Williams, 526 F.3d at 1324. Accordingly, Parrales Bravo has
not met his burden to show that his 135-month sentence was unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
8
