United States v. Luis Quinones-Barcelo

Case: 12-14983 Date Filed: 05/17/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14983
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60106-JIC-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS QUINONES-BARCELO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 17, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14983 Date Filed: 05/17/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Luis Quinones-Barcelo appeals his 33-month sentence, at the low-end of the
advisory guideline range, for conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). On appeal, Quinones-Barcelo argues that his
sentence was substantively unreasonable and that the district court should have
varied downward from the guideline range. He asserts that his limited role in the
offense and his family history and characteristics supported a downward variance.
After thorough review, we affirm Quinones-Barcelo’s sentence.
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). The district court must impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with the purposes listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including
the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law,
provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the
public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
In imposing a particular sentence, the court must also consider the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the
kinds of sentences available, the applicable guideline range, the pertinent policy
statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. §
3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
2
Case: 12-14983 Date Filed: 05/17/2013 Page: 3 of 4
In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we first ensure that the
sentence was procedurally reasonable. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597.
Then, we examine whether the sentence was substantively reasonable in light of
the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Id. The
party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of showing that the sentence is
unreasonable. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
Although we do not automatically presume that a sentence falling within the
guideline range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be
reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). That the
district court imposed a sentence well below the statutory maximum penalty is
another indicator of reasonableness. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319,
1324 (11th Cir. 2008). We reverse only if left with the firm conviction that the
district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors
by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences. United
States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Here, we hold that Quinones-Barcelo’s challenge to his sentence’s
substantive reasonableness is without merit. 1 His sentence is well below the
statutory maximum sentence of 20 years. See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. He
committed the current offense while he was on supervised release—and a mere
1
Quinones-Barcelo does not challenge his sentence’s procedural reasonableness.
3
Case: 12-14983 Date Filed: 05/17/2013 Page: 4 of 4
nine months after his release from prison—for convictions for conspiracy to
possess with intent to manufacture and distribute more than fifty marijuana plants,
maintaining a drug-involved premise, and endangering human life while
manufacturing marijuana. When Quinones-Barcelo and his co-conspirator were
arrested for the current offense, police found a loaded pistol in a bag of materials
that they were planning to bring to the robbery. Additionally, at sentencing,
defense counsel presented arguments concerning Quinones-Barcelo’s secondary
role in the planned robbery, and the PSI detailed Quinones-Barcelo’s family
history. The district court stated that it had considered all of the information in the
PSI and the parties’ arguments, and the district court imposed a sentence at the
low-end of the guideline range. Nothing in the record suggests that the court
abused its discretion in determining that the seriousness of the offense, and the
need to promote respect for the law, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the
public from future crimes committed by Quinones-Barcelo outweighed his
personal characteristics and secondary role in the planning of the robbery.
Accordingly, Quinones-Barcelo’s sentence was substantively reasonable,
and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4