Case: 18-11376 Date Filed: 10/19/2018 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-11376
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-20675-CMA-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN HERRERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 19, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, BRANCH and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-11376 Date Filed: 10/19/2018 Page: 2 of 4
Juan Herrera appeals his sentence of 84 months of imprisonment following
his plea of guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1349. He argues
that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When reviewing the
reasonableness of an above-guideline sentence, we “may consider the extent of the
deviation but must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the
§ 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed an above-
guideline sentence to address the magnitude and duration of Herrera’s fraud. After
serving Perez Trading Company Incorporated for fifteen years while drawing an
annual salary of $200,000, Herrera began abusing his role as senior manager and
stole from the company by submitting fraudulent invoices in the names of shell
companies that he created, by approving payment for those sham invoices, and by
having two cohorts negotiate the company-issued checks. Herrera defrauded his
employer and his 150 coworkers who shared in the company profits for fifteen
years, during which he distributed one quarter of the stolen proceeds to his cohorts
and still retained approximately $8 million. With a total offense level of 24 and a
criminal history of I, Herrera faced an advisory sentencing range of 51 to 63
months of imprisonment. After “very careful consideration,” the district court
2
Case: 18-11376 Date Filed: 10/19/2018 Page: 3 of 4
found that Herrera’s “advisory guideline range [was] not sufficient” to account for
the enormity of his fraud and his efforts “to shield his assets from collection” or “to
serve the objectives” in sentencing to “promote respect for the law” and to
“provide deterrence to others.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We cannot say that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
determining that a sentence 21 months above the high end of Herrera’s sentencing
range best served the objectives of sentencing. See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d
1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Herrera contends that “the district court
made no effort to compare the harm [he] caused . . . to the harm caused in run of
the mill cases involving similar amounts,” but the district court was not required to
“compare the details of [Herrera’s] case . . . with the details of the average
offender’s average case” before selecting a sentence, see United States v. Rosales-
Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1265 (11th Cir. 2015). Because Herrera “believes the
district court made a clear error of judgment when it sentenced him more harshly
than it would have done in a ‘mine-run case,’ it is his burden to prove as much,” id.
at 1264, yet Herrera offers no evidence that his case is, in his words, a “typical
wire-fraud case.” Herrera also contends that “[t]he loss amount and abuse of trust
were directly considered . . . [in] the guidelines,” but the district court was entitled
to base its variance on factors already accounted for in the enhancement of
Herrera’s offense level, see United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258, 1264 (11th
3
Case: 18-11376 Date Filed: 10/19/2018 Page: 4 of 4
Cir. 2010). Herrera’s sentence of 84 months of imprisonment, which is well below
his maximum statutory penalty, is reasonable. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550
F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
We AFFIRM Herrera’s sentence.
4