United States v. Jose Armando Casas

Case: 15-10557 Date Filed: 12/03/2015 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10557
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60172-RLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE ARMANDO CASAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 3, 2015)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Armando Casas appeals his 188-month sentence, which was imposed
after he pleaded guilty to one count of possessing with intent to distribute 500
Case: 15-10557 Date Filed: 12/03/2015 Page: 2 of 6
grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). On appeal, Casas argues that the district
court erred in denying him a minor-role reduction in light of recent amendments to
the United States Sentencing Guidelines and because he was paid only a small sum
to transport the drugs. He also argues that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
A district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in an offense is a
finding of fact that this Court reviews for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez
De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). The district court has
“considerable discretion in making this fact-intensive determination.” United
States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2002). The defendant bears the
burden of establishing his entitlement to a minor-role reduction by a preponderance
of the evidence. United States v. Alvarez-Coria, 447 F.3d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir.
2006) (per curiam).
A defendant is entitled to a two-level reduction if he “was a minor
participant in any criminal activity.” United States Sentencing Guidelines
§ 3B1.2(b). Minor participants are those who are “less culpable than most other
participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” Id. § 3B1.2,
2
Case: 15-10557 Date Filed: 12/03/2015 Page: 3 of 6
comment. (n.5). Whether to apply a minor-role adjustment “is heavily dependent
upon the facts of the particular case.” Id. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(C)).
In determining whether a minor-role adjustment applies, the district court
should consider: (1) the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct; and (2) his role as
compared to those of other participants. De Varon, 175 F.3d at 940. The fact that
a defendant’s role is less than those of other participants may not be dispositive
because it is possible that none of them are minor participants. Id. at 944. When
considering the role of a drug courier, “the amount of drugs imported is a material
consideration in assessing a defendant’s role.” Id. at 943. “[A] drug courier is not
necessarily a minor or minimal participant.” United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d
1551, 1566 (11th Cir. 1990).
In recent amendments to the Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission
clarified the factors to consider for a minor-role adjustment, particularly for low-
level offenders. The Commission added the following language to the Application
Notes for § 3B1.2:
In determining whether to apply subsection (a) or (b), or an
intermediate adjustment, the court should consider the following non-
exhaustive list of factors:
(i) the degree to which the defendant understood the scope
and structure of the criminal activity;
(ii) the degree to which the defendant participated in
planning or organizing the criminal activity;
3
Case: 15-10557 Date Filed: 12/03/2015 Page: 4 of 6
(iii) the degree to which the defendant exercised decision-
making authority or influenced the exercise of decision-
making authority;
(iv) the nature and extent of the defendant’s participation in
the commission of the criminal activity, including the
acts the defendant performed and the responsibility and
discretion the defendant had in performing those acts;
(v) the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit from
the criminal activity.
USSG App. C, Amend. 794. Although this Court applies the version of the
Guidelines in effect on the date of sentencing when reviewing the district court’s
application of the Guidelines, we consider clarifying amendments retroactively on
appeal regardless of the date of sentencing. United States v. Jerchower, 631 F.3d
1181, 1184 (11th Cir. 2011).
Here, the district court did not clearly err in denying Casas a minor-role
adjustment. Casas was not a mere courier delivering drugs to someone else for
distribution. He hid a large quantity of methamphetamine—three kilograms—in
the engine compartment of a vehicle and drove it from Texas to Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. He intended to exchange the methamphetamine for cocaine there, and
then planned to deliver the cocaine to another location. Casas argues that he is
eligible for a minor-role adjustment because he had little decision-making
authority and did not stand to gain much from the transaction. Even though Casas
did not set prices or the quantity of drugs to be delivered, he was entrusted, without
supervision, with a large quantity of narcotics for an extended period. Given
4
Case: 15-10557 Date Filed: 12/03/2015 Page: 5 of 6
Casas’s knowledge of the scope and structure of the scheme and his level of
responsibility in carrying it out, the district court’s denial of a minor-role reduction
was not clear error.
II.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Asante, 782 F.3d 639, 648 (11th Cir. 2015). “The
party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show it is unreasonable in light
of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371,
1378 (11th Cir. 2010). Although we do not automatically presume that a within-
Guidelines sentence is reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be
reasonable. Asante, 782 at 648. “A sentence imposed well below the statutory
maximum penalty is an indicator of a reasonable sentence.” United States v.
Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 188-month
sentence and denying Casas’s request for a downward variance. First, his sentence
falls at the very bottom of the applicable Guideline range. It thus carries an
expectation of reasonableness. See Asante, 782 F.3d at 648. Second, it falls well
below the maximum possible sentence of life. See Dougherty, 754 F.3d at 1362.
Casas notes that this is his first drug offense, he cooperated with police, he has
maintained steady employment, and he has no history of drug or alcohol abuse.
5
Case: 15-10557 Date Filed: 12/03/2015 Page: 6 of 6
However, Casas was previously convicted for smuggling illegal aliens into the
United States and has been deported twice, only to return unlawfully. His crimes
have since become more serious; here, Casas played a significant role in a criminal
scheme involving a large quantity of drugs. Casas has not met his burden of
showing that his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. We
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
6