[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 26, 2006
No. 05-16928 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00035-CR-FTM-33DNF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARTIN GONZALEZ-CASTELLANOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 26, 2006)
Before DUBINA, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Martin Gonzalez-Castellanos appeals the 108-month
sentence imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841and 846.
Gonzalez-Castellanos entered a guilty plea to conspiracy without a written
plea agreement. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Gonzalez-Castellanos,
his brother Jose Gonzalez-Castellanos (“Jose”), and several others engaged in a
conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. In furtherance of this conspiracy,
Gonzalez-Castellanos provided a government cooperator with a methamphetamine
sample, drove an automobile with two firearms, and delivered at least 2.5 pounds
of methamphetamine. Jose’s actions included participating in methamphetamine
transactions in an unspecified fashion, and being a passenger in the above-
mentioned automobile containing firearms. Jose cooperated with police after the
two were discovered with the firearms, admitting to the drug conspiracy and
leading the police to a trailer used for methamphetamine storage.
In calculating the guidelines range, the probation officer recommended a
base offense level of 32 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(10), with a two-level
enhancement for possession of a firearm, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and a three-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, for a total offense
level of 31. With a criminal history category of I, the guideline range was 108-135
months imprisonment. Gonzalez-Castellanos made no objections either to the
2
presentence investigation report or at sentencing. He argued, however, that the
district court should sentence him below the advisory guideline range because of
his youth, drug addiction and inability to receive treatment in prison, his likely
deportation after completion of his prison term, and his minor role when compared
to the role of his brother.1 He contended that a term of 60 months imprisonment
would be appropriate. The district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors and that it had the authority to depart, but stated that “when you become a
distributor of drugs such as methamphetamine . . . then you cause this misery upon
other people. And this type of action demands serious consequences.” The district
court sentenced Gonzalez-Castellanos to 108 months imprisonment. Gonzalez-
Castellanos raised no objection to his sentence. Gonzalez-Castellanos now
appeals.
Because Gonzalez-Castellanos failed to challenge his sentence in the district
court, we will review for plain error only. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d
1291, 1298 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 2935 (2005). An appellate court
may not correct an error the defendant failed to raise in the district court unless
there is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” If all
three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to
1
Jose faced the same guidelines range and was sentenced to 108 months imprisonment.
3
notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted).
The district court is required to accurately calculate the Guideline range, and
we review the final sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Winingear, 422
F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotes omitted). Reasonableness
depends on the factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a): the applicable Guideline
range, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need for the sentence to
reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just
punishment for the offense, and provide the defendant with needed medical care.
Id. at 1246; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Another factor is “the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have
been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
After a thorough review of the record, we find no reversible error, plain or
otherwise. The district court considered the § 3553(a) factors as well as the
guidelines, and found that a sentence at the low end of the guideline range was
appropriate. The record does not reflect a substantially lower level of culpability
on the part of Gonzalez-Castellanos as compared to Jose, who received the same
sentence. We conclude, therefore, that his sentence was reasonable. Accordingly,
we AFFIRM.
4