[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 16, 2007
No. 06-13240 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-00048-CR-1-SPM-AK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OMAR GARCIA VAZQUEZ-CASARES,
a.k.a. 103M19-03,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 16, 2007)
Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Omar Garcia Vazquez-Casares appeals his 211-month sentence for
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of
methamphetamine and more than 500 grams of a mixture and substance containing
methamphetamine. Vazquez-Casares argues that the district court clearly erred in
imposing a two-level leadership-role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c).
Vazquez-Casares contends that the district clearly erred in finding a government
witness’s testimony supporting the enhancement as credible,1 and that moreover,
with or without this witness, the evidence was insufficient to support the
enhancement. Vazquez-Casares also argues that the district court imposed an
unreasonable sentence because it failed to consider properly the factors under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Section 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines allows the district court to
increase a defendant’s base offense level by two levels if he was “an organizer,
leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c).
In this case, the district court did not clearly err by imposing the Section 3B1.1(c)
enhancement, because the evidence supports that Vazquez-Casares asserted control
and influence over a co-conspirator and recruited and arranged for the co-
conspirator to deliver drugs for him. See United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344,
1355 (11th Cir. 2005) (discussing standard of review and factors a district court
1
Because Vazquez-Casares has not presented sufficient evidence to overcome the great
deference we afford the credibility determinations by the trier-of-fact, we do not find that the
district court erred in concluding that the government witness’s testimony was credible. See
United States v. McPhee, 336 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003).
2
may consider in imposing this enhancement).
We also conclude that the district court imposed a reasonable sentence. The
court specifically considered Vazquez-Casares’s argument for a sentence below his
applicable guideline range based on his personal history and the nature of the
offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Furthermore, the court considered the available
sentences and consulted the Guidelines, which it noted were advisory. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(3) and (4). The court sentenced Vazquez-Casares within the applicable
guideline range, which carries an expectation of reasonableness. United States v.
Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). Although the court did not discuss all
the factors listed in Section 3553(a), sentencing courts are not required to
specifically mention each factor. United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th
Cir. 2005). Accordingly, because the district court considered the § 3553(a)
factors and Vazquez-Casares’s arguments, we conclude that his sentence was
reasonable.2
AFFIRMED.
2
Vazquez-Casares also argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights
when it sentenced him based on a quantity of drugs that was greater than the amount found by
the jury. However, there was no constitutional error in the district court’s use of extra-verdict
enhancements because it applied the guidelines as advisory. United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d
1318, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2005).
3