Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-12755/USCOURTS-ca11-14-12755-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alain Artiles
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12755

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20864-KMW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

ALAIN ARTILES, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 17, 2015)

Before MARTIN, JULIE CARNES, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 14-12755 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 1 of 5
2

After pleading guilty, Defendant Alain Artiles appeals his 70-month, withinguideline range sentence for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). On 

appeal, Defendant argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because 

the district court did not adequately account for certain mitigating 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors. After review, we affirm. 

We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion using 

a two-step process. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008). 

We look first to whether the district court committed any significant procedural 

error and then at whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the 

totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.1

 Id. Although in 

choosing the sentence, the district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors, the 

district court is not required to address each factor separately. United States v. 

Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1182 (11th Cir. 2006). The party challenging the sentence 

bears the burden of showing that it is unreasonable. Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1189. We

will reverse only if “left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court 

committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving 

 1 The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the 

history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, 

to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for 

deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed 

educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the 

Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) 

the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to 

victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

USCA11 Case: 14-12755 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 2 of 5
3

at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the 

facts of the case.” Id. at 1191 (quotation marks omitted). 

Here, Defendant has identified no procedural errors nor has he shown that 

his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Defendant’s 70-month sentence is at 

the low end of the advisory guidelines range of 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment and 

well below the 20-year statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). See United 

States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that, while we do

not apply a presumption, we ordinary expect a sentence inside the advisory 

guidelines range to be reasonable); United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 

(11th Cir. 2008) (citing the fact that the sentence imposed was well below the 

statutory maximum as an indication of reasonableness).

Contrary to Defendant’s argument, the record reflects that the district court 

did consider the nature of the offense and Defendant’s personal circumstances, 

including his own and his family’s history of mental illness and substance abuse; 

the unsophisticated nature of his offense and the fact that he was not actually 

carrying a weapon; and Defendant’s assistance in solving a New Jersey bank 

robbery by confessing that he had committed that crime. Defendant asserted these 

mitigation arguments in his sentencing memorandum and at his sentencing hearing. 

In imposing sentence, the district court explicitly acknowledged that it had heard 

and considered the parties’ arguments and concluded that Defendant’s arguments

USCA11 Case: 14-12755 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 3 of 5
4

were insufficient to warrant a downward variance. The district court was not 

required to explicitly address each of Defendant’s mitigation arguments. United 

States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005). In any event, the district 

court did explicitly address Defendant’s assistance in solving the New Jersey 

robbery. While this assistance did not warrant a downward variance, the district 

court determined that Defendant should be given some credit for his cooperation

and the court imposed a lesser sentence than the 74-month sentence advocated by 

the government. 

Moreover, we discern no abuse of discretion by the district court when it 

denied Defendant’s request for a downward variance after concluding that the 

alleged mitigating factors were outweighed by Defendant’s criminal history and 

the nature of the offense. See United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 

2007) (stating that “[t] he weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a 

matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” (quotation marks 

omitted)). In carrying out his two bank robberies, Defendant had handed the tellers 

a note in which he claimed he had a gun, demanded money, and insisted on no dye 

packs. His demand succeeded as the tellers gave him the requested money. While 

Defendant did not actually display a weapon during these two bank robberies, the 

bank tellers did not know that his claimed possession of a gun might not have been 

true and they were presumably frightened. Defendant also has a long and violent 

USCA11 Case: 14-12755 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 4 of 5
5

criminal history, including convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon, theft and criminal trespass after breaking into vehicles, and burglary of an 

occupied apartment. 

For all these reasons, Defendant has not carried his burden to show that his 

70-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-12755 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 5 of 5