Case ID: f-appx_200/html/0924-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo ORGANES-GANDAVILLA, a.k.a. Arturo Organes Gandavilla, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-11135
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 17, 2006.
    Hector Flores, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Jeanne Marie Mullenhoff, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Arturo Organes-Gandavilla appeals his combined sentence of 228 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine while on board a vessel, 46 U.S.CApp. § 1903(a), possession with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine while on board a vessel, 46 U.S.C.App. § 1908(j), and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Organes-Gandavilla argues that his sentence is unreasonable because of an unwarranted sentencing disparity between his sentence and the sentences of his co-conspirators. We affirm.

‘We review the sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir.2005). “[W]hen the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” Id.

Section 3553 of the sentencing guidelines includes as a sentencing factor “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). The district court considered this factor and found that the greater sentence imposed on Organes-Gandavilla was not unwarranted because Organes-Gandavilla was responsible for a firearm. The sentence imposed was not unreasonable.

The sentence is

AFFIRMED.