[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-14220

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cr-00326-CEM-KRS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JOSE ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, 

a.k.a. Hector Mauel Reyes,

a.k.a. Hector Manuel Reyes Quinones,

 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 25, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-14220 Date Filed: 01/25/2017 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Jose Rodriguez appeals his 18-month low-end guideline sentence, imposed 

after entering a guilty plea to one count of failing to surrender for service of 

sentence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3146(a)(2) and (b)(1)(A)(ii). On appeal, 

Rodriguez argues that the sentence imposed by the district court was substantively 

unreasonable because it was unduly severe and failed to take into account both his 

reason for committing the crime—his fear that he would be killed upon being 

deported to Colombia for cooperating in the investigation against his brother—and 

the fact that his criminal history category overstated the extent of his actual 

criminal history. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we 

affirm.

In 2012, Jose Rodriguez pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, for 

making a false statement on his United States passport application. Rodriguez was 

sentenced to eight months in prison. Rodriguez was permitted to self-surrender to 

serve his eight-month sentence, but instead he absconded. In 2015, Rodriguez was 

arrested upon his attempt to re-enter the United States in Texas. He pleaded guilty 

to, and was convicted of, failure to surrender for service of his sentence. Given the 

applicable offense level and Rodriguez’s criminal history, the advisory-guidelines 

range for his sentence was 18 to 24 months, with a statutory maximum of five 

years. At sentencing, the district court considered Rodriguez’s argument including 

his fear of his brother. But the district court gave greater weight to other factors

Case: 16-14220 Date Filed: 01/25/2017 Page: 2 of 4 
3

and sentenced Rodriguez to 18 months in prison, the bottom of the guidelines 

range. 

The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is subject to a deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard of review. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 

(2007). In reviewing a district court’s sentence for substantive unreasonableness, 

we examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the statutory 

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support the sentence in question. See United States 

v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 

Here, Rodriguez has not demonstrated that his sentence was substantively 

unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. 

Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that the party who challenges 

the sentence bears the burden of showing that the sentence is unreasonable). First, 

while Rodriguez argues that the court did not consider his reasons for failing to 

report, the record indicates that the court did consider this argument and simply 

accorded it less weight than the seriousness of the offense and the need to promote 

respect for the law. The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed 

to the sound discretion of the district court. See United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 

739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Next, if Rodriguez’s criminal-history argument is construed as a request for 

a downward departure, because it mirrors the language of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, the 

Case: 16-14220 Date Filed: 01/25/2017 Page: 3 of 4 
4

court’s refusal to depart downward is not subject to appellate review. See United 

States v. Webb, 139 F.3d 1390, 1394 (11th Cir. 1998). If Rodriguez’s criminal 

history argument is construed as a request for the court to fully consider his 

history, the record again indicates that the district did consider this argument, but 

gave more weight to other factors, which it was entitled to do. 

Finally, although we do not presume that a sentence falling within the 

guideline range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be 

reasonable. See United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). A 

sentence imposed well below the statutory maximum penalty is another indicator 

of a reasonable sentence. See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. Thus, the fact that the 

court’s 18-month sentence was the lowest end of the applicable guideline range of 

18 to 24 months and was also well below the 5-year statutory maximum penalty

further indicates its substantive reasonableness. See id.; Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-14220 Date Filed: 01/25/2017 Page: 4 of 4