[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 10874 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:16

- cr - 00055

- CEM

- KRS

- 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus ZULEYKA JEANETTE COLON

- RIVERA, a.k.a. Mia, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (February 16, 2018) Before WILLIAM PRYOR , NEWSOM and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-10874 Date Filed: 02/16/2018 Page: 1 of 42 Zuleyka Colon

- Rivera appeals her convictions and sentence of 240 months for one count of conspir ing to distribute heroin and for three counts of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute heroin
. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b )(1)(A)(i), (b)(1)(C) ; 18 U.S.C. § 2. Colon

- Rivera challenges the denial of her motion to suppress on the ground that law enforcement officers used the knock and talk exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment as a subterfuge for
an investigatory search. Colon

- Rivera also challenges t he substantive reasonableness of her below

- guidelines sentence. We affirm. The district court did not err by denying Colon

- Rivera’s motion to suppress.

“ The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, is not implicated by entry upon pri vate land to knock on a citizen’ s door for legitimate police purposes unconnected with a search of the premises. ” U nited States v. Taylor , 458 F.3d 1201, 1204 (11th Cir. 2006). Age nts Mark Lee and Daniel Paul Tilton of the Drug Enforcement Agency testified that they visited Colon

- Rivera’s home t o confirm that sh e had used the alias “Mia” to sell heroin to an undercover officer who could not positively identif y the seller. The district court was entitled to credit the agents’ explanation for their visit
. S ee United States v. Ramirez

– Chilel , 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002)
. Lee , Tilton , and the undercover officer surveil led Colon

- Rivera’s home from the street until they sa w her admit a visitor a t 9:20 a.m
. They followed the visitor to his

Case: 17-10874 Date Filed: 02/16/2018 Page: 2 of 43 vehicle where he surrendered 13 bags of heroin. See Kyllo v. United States , 533 U.S. 27, 32 (2001) (“visual observation is no ‘search’ at all ”). Lee and Tilton knock ed on Colon

- Rivera’s door because they had yet to ascertain Mia’s identity from coconspirators b eing a pprehend ed by other federal agents . Colon

- Rivera agree d to speak to the agents in her kitchen , see Illinois v. Rodriguez , 497 U.S. 177, 181 (1990) , and allowed Tilton to “take a look” around he r home to ensure that she was the only occupant , see Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325, 327 (1990)
. Tilton then informed Colon

- Rivera of her rights to silence and counsel , which she waived. See United States v. Pineiro , 389 F.3d 1359, 1366

– 67 (11th Cir. 2004)
. Colon

- Rivera disavowed any involvement in the drug sale , but she incriminated herself by uttering t he undercover officer ’s name as the officer entered the kitchen. After t he agent s arrested Colon

- Rivera, they were allow ed to ask her to consent to a search of her home. See United States v. Hidalgo , 7 F.3d 1566, 1571 (11th Cir. 1993)
. The agents conducted a valid knock and talk , which led to a consensual search of Colon

- Rivera ’s home
. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Colon

Rivera to concurrent sentences of 240 months for conspiring to distribute and for distributing heroin. Colon

- Rivera’s presentence investigation report provided an advisory sentencing range of 262 to 327 months of imprisonment based on her role in manag ing the traffic k ing organization for 38 weeks, her distribution of 19

Case: 17-10874 Date Filed: 02/16/2018 Page: 3 of 44 k ilograms of heroin , and the seizure of two handguns, currency, and 200 bags of heroin from her home
. Colon

- Rivera argued that there was an unwarra nted disparity between her sentencing range and he r coconspirators’ sentences of 206 and 168 months , but Colon

- Rivera, who went to trial and was found guilty of four drug offenses, was not similarly situated to her co conspirators who p leaded guilty to one drug offense
. See United States v. Docampo , 573 F.3d 1091, 1101 (11th Cir. 2009)
. And t he district court t ook into account th at Colon

- Rivera had been abused
as a child and varied downward to impose a sentence 22 months below her applicable guideline range. Colon

- Rivera argues t hat the district court punished her for proceeding to trial as evidenced by its agreement with defense counsel that Colon

- Rivera e xhibited “bizarre decision

- making” by not pleading guilty
. T he district court explained to Colon

- Rivera that she was “not being penalized for not accepting responsibility , ” bu t that she could not receive the same leniency as her coconspirators after she required the government to go to trial. Colon

- Rivera ’s sentence, which is well below h er statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for life, is reasonable. See United States v. Croteau , 819 F.3d 1293, 1310 (11th Cir.), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 254 (2016). We AFFIRM Colon

- Rivera’s convictions and sentence. Case: 17-10874 Date Filed: 02/16/2018 Page: 4 of 4