[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-14180 MARCH 16, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00549-CR-T-17EAJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO MUNOZ VALDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(March 16, 2006)
Before CARNES, BARKETT, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Following a guilty plea, Francisco Munoz Valdez was sentenced to 135-
months imprisonment for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 1903(a), (g), and
(j), and 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and one count of possession with intent to
distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 1903(a) and (g),
18 U.S.C. § 2, and 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii). Valdez appeals his sentence,
arguing that: 1) the district court erred in denying him a minor-role reduction
pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.2(b); and 2) the district court failed to
consider the requisite sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the
following reasons, we affirm.
I.
Valdez argues that the district court erred in failing to award him a
minor-role reduction pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.2(b). We
review the district court’s finding regarding a minor-role reduction for clear error.
United States v. Ryan, 289 F.3d 1339, 1348 (11th Cir. 2002). Valdez has the
burden of establishing that his role was minor by a preponderance of evidence. Id.
“Only if the defendant can establish that []he played a relatively minor role in the
conduct for which []he has already been held accountable – not a minor role in any
larger criminal conspiracy” may a downward adjustment be applied. United States
2
v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999).
At sentencing, Valdez did not object to the factual accuracy of the
presentence report. The report indicated that Valdez was one of five crew members
on a boat transporting approximately 2,627 kilograms of cocaine. In addition, when
the crew encountered the United States Coast Guard, all members of the crew
discarded numerous bales of cocaine, which were later recovered. Based on these
facts, the district court’s finding that Valdez played a role similar to others and,
therefore, failed to show that he was substantially less culpable than other
participants in the conspiracy, is not clearly erroneous.
II.
Valdez also claims that the district court failed to sentence him pursuant to
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that he should have been
given a lesser sentence because he had no criminal history, was poor, was from a
third world nation ravished by civil war, and only minimally participated in the
offense. The government responds by saying that the district court explicitly stated
it considered the factors in § 3553(a), and the court could have reasonably imposed
a greater sentence under the guidelines based on the quantity of cocaine recovered
by authorities.
In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court held that
3
sentences are to be reviewed for “reasonableness.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 261-62.
Moreover, we have held that we will review whether a sentence is reasonable in
light of the factors set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324,
1329 (11th Cir. 2005); see Booker, 543 U.S. at 261. However, we have also held
that “nothing in Booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record
that it has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of
the § 3553(a) factors.” Scott, 426 F.3d at 1329.
The record in this case reflects that the district court adequately and properly
considered the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a). At sentencing, the district
court explicitly noted that “[a]fter considering the advisory sentencing guidelines
and all factors identified in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a)(1)
through (7), [the] Court finds that the sentence imposed is sufficient but not greater
than necessary to comply with the statutory purposes of sentencing.”1 Accordingly,
upon review of the sentencing transcript and the presentence investigation report,
and upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error with
respect to Valdez’s sentence.
AFFIRMED
1
The district court also stated, “the Court having reviewed the presentence report
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3551 and 3553 . . . it is the judgement of the
Court that the defendant . . . is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons . . . for
a term of 135 months.”
4