[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 5, 2009
No. 07-12537 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-20714-CR-UUB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ALBERTO CASILDO-SUAZO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 5, 2009)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Casildo-Suazo appeals his sentence of 135 months of imprisonment
for conspiracy to possess and possession of five kilograms or more of cocaine
while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 46 U.S.C.
§§ 70503(a), 70506(b). Casildo-Suazo argues that he was entitled to a two level
reduction of his sentence for his minor role in the conspiracy and that his sentence
is unreasonable. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The Coast Guard intercepted a fishing boat that contained Casildo-Suazo,
and five cohorts, Ricardo Acuna-Acosta, Manuel Acuna-Acosta, Reynaldo Varela-
Lopez, Dick Dixon-Brounfield, and Milton Valle-Alvarado, after the boat made
erratic course and speed changes. The Coast Guard searched the boat and
discovered 37 blocks of cocaine that weighed 2200 pounds. When questioned by
law enforcement, three of the men asserted that they left Honduras to help retrieve
a stranded vessel, but Casildo-Suazo and another cohort admitted that they were
hired to make a drug run.
Ricardo Acuna-Acosta stated that he was recruited by his brother to serve as
a mechanic in a mission to retrieve a disabled vessel and, when the boat arrived at
the designated coordinates, he and his cohorts discovered blocks of cocaine
floating in the ocean. The men decided to collect the cocaine and return to
2
Honduras to sell the substance. When the Coast Guard arrived, Ricardo urged the
others to throw the cocaine overboard, but Varela-Lopez ordered them to leave the
cocaine on the boat. According to Ricardo, Varela-Lopez kept to himself and
appeared to be “in charge.”
Manuel Acuna-Acosta stated that he was the captain, but Varela-Lopez was
“given charge” of the boat. Manuel said that he was hired to tow a fishing vessel
back to port and that Varela-Lopez gave him the coordinates to reach the vessel.
Manuel explained that, when they discovered the drugs, Varela-Lopez ordered the
crew to collect the packages and return to Honduras.
Dixon-Brounfield, who was hired as a cook by Manuel, was also told that
the mission was to retrieve a disabled vessel, but he realized that they were making
a drug run when he noticed a “go-fast” boat approach and saw its occupants
unloading blocks of cocaine. Dixon-Brounfield told authorities that he, Varela-
Lopez, Casildo-Suazo, and Valle-Alvarado transferred the cocaine to their boat,
and that Manuel said that Varela-Lopez would pay Dixon-Brounfield $3,000 after
they returned to port. Dixon-Brounfield stated that Varela-Lopez regularly made
calls on a satellite telephone and he made a call about thirty minutes before the
“go-fast” boat arrived.
Valle-Alvarado and Casildo-Suazo knew the true purpose of the mission.
3
Valle-Alvarado told authorities that Manuel offered him $5,000 to work on the
boat while it made a drug run. Casildo-Suazo stated that he was hired to retrieve
blocks of cocaine from the water.
Casildo-Suazo and his cohorts were charged in a two-count indictment for
conspiring to possess and the possession of five kilograms or more of cocaine
while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 46 U.S.C.
§§ 70503(a), 70506(b). A laboratory analysis established that the crew possessed
over 900 kilograms of cocaine. Casildo-Suazo entered a blind plea of guilt to the
two crimes.
The presentence investigation report listed a base offense level of 38 and
reduced that level by two points under the safety valve provision, U.S.S.G. §
5C1.2(a), and another three points for Casildo-Suazo’s acceptance of
responsibility, id. § 3E1.1(a), (b). With a criminal history of I, the report provided
a sentencing range between 135 and 168 months of imprisonment. The report
stated that none of the crew members, including Casildo-Suazo, was entitled to a
minor role reduction because their participation was necessary for the success of
the “cocaine distribution scheme.” Manuel was assigned a four level increase for
his role as an organizer, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), and Varela-Lopez was assigned a
three level increase for his role as a supervisor, id. § 3B1.1(b).
4
Casildo-Suazo objected to the report and argued that he was entitled to a two
level reduction for his minor role in the conspiracy. He argued that he served as a
deck hand and was the least culpable of the crew members. He contended that he
served the same role as Valle-Alvarado, who had received a recommendation for a
minor role reduction.
Casildo-Suazo reasserted his objections at his sentencing hearing. The
government explained that it recommended a minor role reduction for Valle-
Alvarado because he was eighteen years old, he was recruited to serve on the boat
36 hours before the drug run, he was sick throughout the voyage, and he was the
first defendant to cooperate with the government. Casildo-Suazo, on the other
hand, knew about the drug run, served an important role on the boat, and waited
until two days before trial to change his plea. The government argued that
Casildo-Suazo served as a mechanic, but after Casildo-Suazo argued that he was a
deck hand, the district court corrected the government and explained that the
presentence report stated that Casildo-Suazo performed boat maintenance. The
district court assured Casildo-Suazo that he was not going to be penalized for
exercising his right to a trial.
The district court explained that Casildo-Suazo had been untruthful in his
post-arrest interview and had committed a very serious offense that “scream[ed]
5
out” for deterrence and warranted a sentence within the guideline range. The court
stated that, in the absence of evidence that Casildo-Suazo did not know he was
going to be involved with a ton of cocaine, it would not award him a minor role
reduction. The district court considered the statutory factors, the arguments of the
parties, and the presentence report and sentenced Casildo-Suazo to concurrent
sentences of 135 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised
release.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
The determination of the defendant’s role in the offense is a finding of fact
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937
(11th Cir. 1999). “In making the ultimate determination of the defendant’s role in
the offense, the sentencing judge has no duty to make any specific subsidiary
factual findings.” Id. at 939. We review the final sentence imposed by the district
court for reasonableness. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th
Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Review for reasonableness is a deferential standard of
review for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597
(2007).
6
III. DISCUSSION
Casildo-Suazo argues that he was entitled to a minor role reduction. He
contends that he was a crew member and did not plan or supervise the drug run.
He also argues that he was entitled to a reduction because his conduct was
comparable to that of Valle-Alvarado. We disagree.
The district court did not err by denying Casildo-Suazo a minor role
reduction. To receive a minor role reduction, a defendant must establish that he is
“less culpable than most other participants, but [his] role could not be described as
minimal.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.5. “[T]he amount of drugs imported is a
material consideration in assessing [the] defendant’s role in [his] relevant conduct”
and “may be dispositive - in and of itself - in the extreme case.” De Varon, 175
F.3d at 943. Because Casildo-Suazo willingly joined a conspiracy to possess a ton
of cocaine, we cannot state that the district court clearly erred in its decision.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence at
the low end of the guideline range. The district court correctly calculated the
advisory guideline range and concluded that a sentence within the guidelines was
necessary to deter similar future conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall, 128 S.
Ct. at 597. Casildo-Suazo’s sentence is reasonable.
IV. CONCLUSION
7
Casildo-Suazo’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
8