[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 17, 2007
No. 06-14740 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00001-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FLAVIO CUERO-ESTACIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(April 17, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Flavio Cuero-Estacio appeals his concurrent 151-month sentences
for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute five or more
kilograms of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to United States jurisdiction in
violation of 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(a), (g), and (j),1 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii),
and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Cuero-Estacio argues on appeal that (1) the district court erred
in refusing to grant him a minor role reduction, and (2) his sentence was
unreasonable.
I.
We review the district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in an
offense for clear error. United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 938 (11th Cir.
1999) (en banc). The district court has “considerable discretion in making this
fact-intensive determination.” United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1277-78
(11th Cir. 2002). The defendant bears the burden of proving his minor role by the
preponderance of the evidence. De Varon, 175 F.3d at 939.
In determining a defendant’s role, the district court must first “measure the
defendant’s role against [his] relevant conduct.” De Varon, 175 F.3d at 934. “In
other words, the district court must assess whether the defendant is a minor or
minimal participant in relation to the relevant conduct attributed to the defendant in
1
The appendix to Title 46 containing the subject provisions was repealed effective
October 6, 2006, and reenacted as 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503 and 70506, respectively, with no relevant
changes. See Pub. L. No. 109-134, 120 Stat. 1485.
2
calculating [his] base offense level.” Id. at 941. We have not established a per se
rule as to whether a drug courier is or is not entitled to a minor role reduction but
have said that “when a drug courier’s relevant conduct is limited to [his] own act of
importation, a district court may legitimately conclude that the courier played an
important or essential role in the importation of those drugs.” Id. at 942-43.
Furthermore, in the drug courier context, “the amount of drugs imported is a
material consideration in assessing a defendant’s role in [his] relevant conduct”
and, in some cases, could be dispositive. Id. at 943.
Although analysis under the first principle may be dispositive in the court's
determination of the defendant's role, the district court may also measure the
defendant's culpability in comparison to that of other participants in the relevant
conduct attributed to the defendant. Id. at 944. When measuring a defendant’s
conduct against other participants’ conduct, a district court may consider only
those participants who are identifiable by the evidence and who were involved in
the relevant conduct for which the defendant was convicted. Id. “The fact that a
defendant’s role may be less than that of other participants engaged in the relevant
conduct may not be dispositive of [his] role in the offense, since it is possible that
none are minor or minimal participants.” Id. “[T]he district court must determine
that the defendant was less culpable than most other participants in [his] relevant
3
conduct.” Id. (emphasis in original).
Here, the record demonstrates that Cuero-Estacio’s relevant conduct was
identical to his actual conduct, a large amount of cocaine (almost 3,000 kilograms)
was involved, and, except for the captain, nothing in the record indicated that
Cuero-Estacio was less culpable than other crew members on the vessel. Thus, he
was not less culpable than the other participants in the conspiracy and the district
court’s denial of a role reduction was not clearly erroneous.
II.
Cuero-Estacio next argues that his sentence was unreasonable because (1) he
will not be able to take care of his family, (2) his likelihood of recidivism is low,
(3) a sentence below guideline range would have been sufficient, and (4) the
sentence creates unwarranted sentencing disparities.
When reviewing a sentence imposed by the district court, we must first
ensure that the district court correctly calculated the guideline range. United States
v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005). Then, we review the sentence
for reasonableness in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at
1246. We review only the final sentence, rather than individual decisions made
during the sentencing process. Id. at 1245. “Review for reasonableness is
deferential.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
4
Furthermore, although a sentence within the guideline range is not per se
reasonable, “when the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory
Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” Id.
Additionally, the sentence’s relation to the statutory maximum may indicate
reasonableness. See Winingear, 422 F.3d at 1246 (comparing the sentence
imposed to the statutory maximum in determining its reasonableness).
A sentencing court is charged with imposing a sentence that is “sufficient,
but not greater than necessary” to reflect the seriousness of the offense, afford
deterrence, protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and provide the
defendant with educational or vocational training, medical care or other treatment.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Furthermore, under § 3553(a), a court should consider,
inter alia, (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant, (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from
further crimes of the defendant, (3) the kinds of sentences available, (4) the
sentencing guidelines, and (5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among similar defendants. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court does not need
to explicitly consider every factor from § 3553(a) on the record; some indication in
the record that the court adequately and properly considered appropriate factors in
5
conjunction with the sentence will be sufficient. United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d
1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005).
Because the record demonstrates that the district court accurately calculated
the sentencing guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced
Cuero-Estacio well below the statutory maximum and within the guideline range,
we conclude that Cuero-Estacio’s sentences were reasonable. Accordingly, we
affirm Cuero-Estacio’s sentences.
AFFIRMED.
6