[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13609

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LOUIS ANTHONEY GOWIE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-20254-MGC-2

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-13609 Date Filed: 08/05/2022 Page: 1 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13609

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Louis Anthoney Gowie appeals his 36-month sentence, 

which the district court imposed after he pled guilty to one count 

of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms 

or more of marijuana on board a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction. 

Gowie argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. 

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

In July 2020, the United States Coast Guard observed a vessel near the coast of Haiti. As the Coast Guard approached the vessel, the vessel accelerated to a high speed. In response, the Coast 

Guard launched a vessel with a law enforcement team to investigate. The team observed one person operating the vessel and three 

crew members, including Gowie, discarding packages overboard.1

The vessel’s operator made evasive maneuvers, prompting the 

Coast Guard team to fire warning shots across the bow of the vessel. The vessel attempted to ram the Coast Guard vessel, and the 

1 Once the Coast Guard approached the vessel, one of the crewmembers 

claimed that the vessel was of Jamaican nationality. The Jamaican government 

later confirmed that the vessel was registered in Jamaica but waived objection 

to the enforcement of United States law. Thus, the vessel, cargo, and crewmembers became subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13609 Date Filed: 08/05/2022 Page: 2 of 8
21-13609 Opinion of the Court 3

Coast Guard team fired shots at the vessel’s engines, disabling the 

vessel. 

Once onboard the vessel, the Coast Guard team observed 

several packages similar to the packages thrown overboard, which 

they later recovered. The packages were filled with marijuana and 

totaled to 1,709 kilograms. 

Gowie and the crewmembers (collectively, the “codefendants”) were charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana on board 

a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction and one count of possession 

with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana on 

board a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Gowie pled guilty to the 

conspiracy count in exchange for the government agreeing to dismissal of the other charge against him. 

Before sentencing, the United States Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSR”) to help the district 

court determine Gowie’s sentence. Based on the quantity of marijuana involved, the PSR calculated Gowie’s base offense level of 30. 

The PSR then applied a two-level reduction because Gowie was 

eligible for the safety valve under § 5C1.2(a)(1)–(5) of the Sentencing Guidelines and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, yielding a total offense level of 25. The PSR found that this 

total offense level and Gowie’s criminal history category of I 

yielded a recommended range under the guidelines of 57 to 

USCA11 Case: 21-13609 Date Filed: 08/05/2022 Page: 3 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13609

71 months’ imprisonment. The statutory range was 10 years to life 

imprisonment.2 

The PSR detailed Gowie’s personal history, including that 

he was a native and citizen of Jamaica and had no legal status in the 

United States. The PSR explained that Gowie grew up in a poor 

and violent community, where he and his eight siblings lived in a 

one-bedroom home with no running water or electricity. Starting 

in the fourth grade, Gowie began work as a market vendor where 

he was employed until 2020, when the market shut down because 

of the COVID-19 pandemic. The PSR also noted Gowie’s medical 

history, including that he suffered from high blood pressure, stomach ulcers, and a prostate condition. 

Gowie objected to the PSR, arguing that the PSR should 

have applied a two-level reduction for his minor role in the criminal activity. He also moved for a downward variance based on his 

criminal history category, personal history and circumstances, and 

medical conditions. He added that, because he was a noncitizen

with no legal status in the country, he would be ineligible to go to 

a halfway house and would be further incarcerated at an immigration detention facility until he was deported. The government opposed the motion. 

2 Because Gowie was eligible for the safety valve, however, the probation officer noted that the district court should impose a sentence in accordance with 

the applicable guidelines without regard to any statutory minimum sentence. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13609 Date Filed: 08/05/2022 Page: 4 of 8
21-13609 Opinion of the Court 5

At sentencing, the district court overruled Gowie’s objection. After considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court sentenced Gowie to 36 months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release. Gowie renewed his previous objection and the government objected to the below-guideline sentence. 

This is Gowie’s appeal.

II. DISCUSSION 

On appeal, Gowie challenges the substantive reasonableness 

of his sentence. We review the reasonableness of a sentence under 

a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “A district court abuses its discretion when 

it (1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due 

significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 

(11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). The 

party challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing it is 

unreasonable. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th 

Cir. 2010). 

When reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, 

we examine the totality of the circumstances, including “whether 

the statutory factors in § 3553(a) support the sentence in 

USCA11 Case: 21-13609 Date Filed: 08/05/2022 Page: 5 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13609

question.”3 United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th 

Cir. 2008). “We will not second guess the weight (or lack thereof) 

that the judge accorded to a given factor under § 3553(a), as long as 

the sentence ultimately imposed is reasonable in light of all the circumstances presented.” United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855, 872 

(11th Cir. 2010) (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We may vacate a sentence only if we firmly believe that 

the district court “committed a clear error of judgment in weighing 

the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the 

range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” 

Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190 (internal quotation marks omitted). We may 

not set aside a sentence “merely because we would have decided 

that another one is more appropriate.” Id. at 1191. “Although we 

do not automatically presume a sentence within the guidelines 

range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect a sentence within the 

[g]uidelines range to be reasonable.” United States v. Hunt, 

3 Under § 3553(a), the district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but 

not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of the statute. 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These purposes include the need to: reflect the seriousness 

of the offense; promote respect for the law; provide just punishment; deter 

criminal conduct; protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct; and effectively provide the defendant with educational or vocational 

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. Id. § 3553(a)(2). The 

court must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the 

applicable guidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing 

Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the 

need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).

USCA11 Case: 21-13609 Date Filed: 08/05/2022 Page: 6 of 8
21-13609 Opinion of the Court 7

526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (alteration adopted) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Gowie argues that, in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, the district court failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors, including the effect of his noncitizen status on his prison term, his personal history and financial circumstances, and his medical conditions. We begin by observing that Gowie’s sentence was far below 

the statutory maximum of life imprisonment and below the applicable guidelines range. Although we do not presume that a sentence within or below the guidelines range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect it to be so. See id.

Essentially, Gowie is asking us to reweigh the relevant factors. We do not reweigh relevant factors nor do we remand for 

re-sentencing unless the district court committed a clear error of 

judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence 

outside the range of reasonable sentences. See Snipes, 611 F.3d 

at 872; Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190. After considering the facts of the case, 

we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the district 

court committed a clear error of judgment when it imposed a 

36-month sentence, rather than a lower sentence. Gowie’s sentence was within the range of reasonable sentences that could be 

imposed in this case in light of the codefendants’ efforts to evade 

the Coast Guard and the large quantity of drugs involved.

USCA11 Case: 21-13609 Date Filed: 08/05/2022 Page: 7 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 21-13609

III. CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, we affirm Gowie’s sentence. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13609 Date Filed: 08/05/2022 Page: 8 of 8