Case: 16-16047 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16047
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60093-WPD-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARCO CANASTILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 31, 2017)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Marco Canastillo appeals his 63-month sentence. The district court imposed
this sentence after Canastillo pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 846.
Case: 16-16047 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Canastillo argues his sentence was substantively unreasonable. After careful
review, we affirm the district court.
I.
Canastillo pled guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 2,240
grams of a substance containing 98.1% pure methamphetamine. Along with his
plea, Canastillo admitted to the following facts: Canastillo and a codefendant,
acting as couriers, delivered methamphetamine from Arizona to an undercover
detective in Florida. Canastillo was an assistant to this codefendant. Canastillo
said he was going to be paid $1,000 for the deal.
The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) calculated Canastillo’s total
offense level as 26 under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This
calculation included a reduction for Canastillo’s minor role in his crime. The PSR
also set out that Canastillo had a criminal history category of I. Thus, the PSR
concluded Canastillo’s guideline imprisonment range was 63 to 78 months.
At sentencing, Canastillo made no objections to the PSR’s calculations. But
Canastillo asked the district court for a downward variance to 41-months
imprisonment. To support his request, Canastillo highlighted his minor role as an
assistant courier in the crime; the nonviolent nature of his crime; and his lowest
criminal history category. He also emphasized his difficult upbringing in Mexico,
2
Case: 16-16047 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 3 of 4
where he was born into poverty and had to work during the day while attending
school at night.
In imposing the sentence, the district court said it considered the sentencing
factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court noted that Canastillo’s background
was a mitigating circumstance, but found that a sentence within the guideline range
would better deter future crimes. The court then sentenced Canastillo to 63-
months imprisonment. Canastillo objected at sentencing that his sentence was
substantively unreasonable. This appeal followed.
II.
We review for an abuse of discretion the substantive reasonableness of a
district court’s sentence. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188 (11th Cir.
2010) (en banc). A district court “imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence
only when it (1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due
significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor,
or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” United
States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted).
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sets out the factors that a district court must consider at
sentencing. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189. Canastillo argues on appeal the district court
did not properly weigh: (1) his history and characteristics; (2) the nature and
circumstances of his crime; (3) adequate deterrence; and (4) just punishment. 18
3
Case: 16-16047 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 4 of 4
U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(A), & (2)(B). Specifically, Canastillo says he had a
minor role in the crime; he was not likely to reoffend based on his lack of criminal
history; and he committed a nonviolent offense. He also noted his difficult
upbringing in Mexico, where he was born into poverty and had to work while
attending school. Canastillo argues the district court “simply deferred” to the
Guidelines and did not take these mitigating circumstances into account.
However, the record shows the district court did consider all the § 3553(a)
factors. It also considered Canastillo’s background a mitigating circumstance. The
court balanced Canastillo’s mitigating circumstances with the other § 3553(a)
factors, including its view that a downward departure from the guideline range
would not properly deter future crimes. The court sentenced Canastillo at the low
end of his guideline range. On this record we cannot say the district court abused
its discretion. See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254–55. We therefore affirm the
district court.
AFFIRMED.
4