[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10758

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE MANUEL GOMEZ-GOMEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00032-CEH-AAS-3

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-10758 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 1 of 11
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10758

Before WILSON, BRANCH, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Manuel Gomez-Gomez appeals his sentence of 120 

months’ imprisonment for offenses stemming from the trafficking 

of cocaine aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States. He challenges the district court’s calculation of the weight 

of the contraband attributable to him and the denial of a reduced 

sentence for his allegedly minor role in the conspiracy. Yet any 

error involving the drug weight is harmless, and the district court 

did not clearly err in denying a minor role reduction. After careful 

review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm GomezGomez’s sentence. 

I. Background 

On January 24, 2019, the United States Coast Guard 

intercepted a stateless vessel in international waters—

approximately 575 miles off the coast of Ecuador. Gomez-Gomez

was one of three mariners on board. Coast Guard officers boarded 

the vessel and saw bales containing a white powdery substance on 

the deck that tested positive for cocaine. A further search of the 

vessel uncovered 28 bales of cocaine, which the Coast Guard 

seized. According to the government, the total weight of the 

cocaine—as measured aboard the Coast Guard Cutter Dependable 

just after the seizure—was 560 kilograms. 

Later, a federal grand jury indicted Gomez-Gomez and his 

two co-defendants for possession of five or more kilograms of 

USCA11 Case: 21-10758 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 2 of 11
21-10758 Opinion of the Court 3

cocaine with intent to distribute while on board a vessel subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 

§§ 70503(a), 70506(a)–(b); 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) (Count 1), and 

aiding and abetting one another in the same, in violation of 46 

U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a)–(b), 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii); 18 

U.S.C. § 2 (Count 2). Gomez-Gomez pled guilty to both counts.1 

a. Gomez-Gomez’s First Sentencing

Gomez-Gomez was originally sentenced to the statutory 

minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment on June 25, 2019. Section 

2D1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides a base offense level 

of 38 for a defendant who trafficked 450 kilograms or more of 

cocaine, but a base offense level of 36 for defendants who trafficked 

between 150 kilograms and 450 kilograms of cocaine. U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1(c)(1), (2). Despite a lack of record evidence establishing the 

weight of the cocaine, the district court took the government at its 

word that the net weight of the cocaine was greater than 450

kilograms.2 The district court also denied Gomez-Gomez’s request 

for a minor role reduction. 

1

The minimum term of imprisonment for each offense is 120 months and the 

maximum term is life. 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii).

2

After assigning a base offense level of 38, the district court reduced GomezGomez’s sentence based on the § 3552(a) factors and imposed a sentence of 

two concurrent terms of 120 months’ imprisonment, followed by 5 years of 

supervised release. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10758 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 3 of 11
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10758

Gomez-Gomez appealed his sentence, challenging the 

district court’s finding that the net weight of the cocaine exceeded 

450 kilograms, but he did not appeal the district court’s denial of a 

minor role reduction. See United States v. Gomez, 818 F. App’x 

907 (11th Cir. 2020). We vacated Gomez-Gomez’s sentence, 

holding that the district court clearly erred by approximating the 

weight of the cocaine based on the government’s stipulation with 

no factual basis. Id. at 909–10. We remanded with instructions for 

the district court to calculate the weight of the cocaine on record 

evidence. Id. at 910. 

b. Gomez-Gomez’s Second Sentencing

On remand, the probation office prepared a new PSI, which 

mentioned (for the first time) the existence of a laboratory report 

from a test of a representative sample of the cocaine seized and 

included photographs of the sample and the test results. 

Extrapolating from the test of the representative sample, the PSI 

reported that “the defendant is accountable for approximately 560 

kilograms of cocaine.” Two weeks after the government sent 

Gomez-Gomez’s counsel the test results, his counsel notified the

government that he wanted to retain an expert to analyze and 

weigh the drugs. The government, however, informed him the 

bulk of the cocaine—all but 10.5 kg—had been destroyed. 

Gomez-Gomez was resentenced on March 4, 2021. At the 

hearing, he contended that the failure to notify him that the 

contraband evidence would be destroyed violated the district 

USCA11 Case: 21-10758 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 4 of 11
21-10758 Opinion of the Court 5

court’s scheduling order and his due process rights. He also 

renewed his minor role reduction objection. 

The district court held that the government met its burden 

of establishing that the net weight of the cocaine was 560 

kilograms, based on the laboratory report and testimony from 

government witnesses at the hearing and rejected his due process 

argument. It also denied Gomez-Gomez a minor role reduction 

after finding that Gomez-Gomez’s role was no less important than 

his co-defendants, who were each hired to transport a large amount 

of cocaine and took turns driving and navigating the vessel. 

The district court then resentenced Gomez-Gomez to two 

concurrent terms of 120 months’ imprisonment followed by five 

years of supervised release. Because the weight of the cocaine 

exceeded 450 kilograms, the district court assigned a base offense 

level of 38, but downward varied the sentence because of GomezGomez’s unimpressive role in the offense, his advanced age, his 

poverty, his lack of education, and his cooperation with the 

government. The district court stated on the record, however, that 

the sentence “would be the same” regardless of “whether the base 

offense level was a 36 or a 38” (i.e., whether the cocaine was less or 

greater than 450 kilograms). 

Gomez-Gomez appeals his sentence, challenging the district 

court’s calculation of the weight of the cocaine to determine his 

base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), and its decision not to 

award him a minor role reduction. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10758 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 5 of 11
6 Opinion of the Court 21-10758

II. Standard of Review 

We review a district court’s factual determination of the drug 

quantity attributable to a defendant for clear error. United States 

v. Azmat, 805 F.3d 1018, 1046 (11th Cir. 2015). Likewise, we 

consider “whether a defendant qualifies for a minor role 

adjustment under the Guidelines [to be] a finding of fact that will 

be reviewed only for clear error.” United States v. Rodriguez De 

Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 934 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). “Clear error 

review is deferential, and ‘we will not disturb a district court’s 

findings unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that 

a mistake has been committed.’” United States v. Cruickshank, 837 

F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Ghertler, 

605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010)). We review the substantive 

reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2015). 

III. Discussion 

Gomez-Gomez argues that the district court erred in 

determining the weight of the cocaine attributable to him to 

determine his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). He 

claims that destruction of the representative sample and bulk 

contraband violated the district court’s scheduling order and his 

due process rights and that the net weight of the cocaine was 

actually 447 kilograms.3

 We need not address any of Gomez3

Gomez-Gomez’s arguments about the scheduling order and his due process 

rights mirror his argument about drug weight—namely, that if the cocaine 

USCA11 Case: 21-10758 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 6 of 11
21-10758 Opinion of the Court 7

Gomez’s challenges to the weight of the cocaine and his base 

offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) because any alleged error 

was harmless. 

A district court’s alleged error in sentencing a defendant is 

harmless if the court states on the record that a disputed guideline 

calculation did not matter to the sentence imposed and if the 

ultimate sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. United 

States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1348–50 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, we assume the district court erred, calculate the 

guideline range without the error, and then analyze whether the 

sentence would be substantively reasonable under the properly 

calculated guideline range. Id. 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) provides for a base offense level of 38 

for the unlawful manufacturing, importing, exporting, or 

trafficking of “450 KG or more of Cocaine.” But an offense 

involving between 150 and 450 kilograms of cocaine receives a base 

offense level of 36. Id. 

Here, the district court stated on the record that its sentence 

“would be the same” regardless of “whether the base offense level 

was a 36 or a 38”—in other words, even if the government failed to 

show the net weight of cocaine attributable to Gomez-Gomez was 

weighed less than 450 kilograms, the district court would have assigned him a 

base offense level of 36 rather than 38. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1). 

USCA11 Case: 21-10758 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 7 of 11
8 Opinion of the Court 21-10758

greater than 450 kilograms the district court would still sentence 

him to 120 months’ imprisonment. 

As to substantive reasonableness, had the district court 

applied a base level offense of 36, Gomez-Gomez’s total offense 

level would have been 29. With an offense level of 29 and a 

criminal history category of I, Gomez-Gomez’s guidelines range 

would have been 87 to 108 months. See U.S.S.G., Ch. 5, Pt. A. 

Gomez-Gomez’s sentence is reasonable for two reasons. First, the 

120-month sentence, while 12 months above the high end of the 

unenhanced guidelines, was well below the statutory maximum of 

life. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008); 

21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii). Second, the record shows that the 

district court evaluated the § 3553(a) factors in imposing its 

sentence, considering Gomez-Gomez’s relatively advanced age, his 

poverty as a youth, his role in the offense, the need to avoid 

unwarranted sentencing disparities between him and his codefendants, and the amount of cocaine involved. It also stated that 

a sentence of 120 months is “sufficient but not greater than 

necessary to comply with the statutory purposes of sentencing.” 

Accordingly, assuming Gomez-Gomez’s base offense level was 36, 

his sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment was substantively 

reasonable, and any error in calculating the weight of the cocaine 

was harmless. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10758 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 8 of 11
21-10758 Opinion of the Court 9

Gomez-Gomez also claims the district court erred in failing 

to award him a two-level reduction for playing only a minor role 

in the drug trafficking conspiracy.

4 We disagree.

4

The government claims that Gomez-Gomez is barred from raising this issue 

on appeal under the law of the case doctrine because Gomez-Gomez failed to 

raise the issue in his first appeal. We disagree. “The law of the case doctrine, 

self-imposed by the courts, operates to create efficiency, finality, and 

obedience within the judicial system so that an appellate decision binds all 

subsequent proceedings in the same case.” United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 

823, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). However, a mandate providing 

for a general vacatur of a sentence requires resentencing de novo, akin to

when we vacate a defendant’s criminal conviction. United States v. Martinez, 

606 F.3d 1303, 1304 (11th Cir. 2010). In contrast, when we issue a limited 

mandate with particular remand instructions, the district court is restricted to 

the issues outlined in the mandate. United States v. Davis, 329 F.3d 1250, 1252 

(11th Cir. 2003). Unlike a general vacatur, a limited mandate does not “nullify 

all prior proceedings.” Id. (quotations omitted). 

The law of the case doctrine is inapplicable here because our mandate

in Gomez I provided for a general, rather than limited, vacatur of GomezGomez’s sentence, permitting the district court to resentence him de novo. 

See 818 F. App’x at 910 (“[W]e vacate Gomez’s 120-month total sentence and 

remand his case to the District Court for resentencing consistent with this 

opinion.”). Accordingly, on remand the probation office prepared a new PSI, 

Gomez-Gomez made a slew of objections (including an objection to the denial 

of a minor role adjustment), and the district court considered each objection

de novo pursuant to our instructions. Consequently, even if the law of the 

case doctrine would otherwise apply, Gomez-Gomez’s claims arise from the 

district court’s second de novo sentencing and therefore could not have been 

brought in earlier proceedings. Thus, the law of the case doctrine does not 

bar Gomez-Gomez’s minor role adjustment argument, and we consider it on 

appeal. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10758 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 9 of 11
10 Opinion of the Court 21-10758

The Guidelines provide for a two-level reduction in a 

defendant’s offense level for being a “minor participant” in the 

criminal conduct. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The Guidelines commentary 

explains that a minor participant is “less culpable than most other 

participants in the criminal activity, but whose role could not be 

described as minimal.” Id., comment. (n.5). A district court may 

apply the minor role reduction based on a preponderance of the 

evidence. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d at 1192. In determining whether 

a defendant qualifies for a minor role adjustment, the district court 

must assess “first, the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct for 

which [he] has been held accountable at sentencing, and, second, 

[his] role as compared to that of other participants in [the] relevant 

conduct.” Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d at 940–41.

Gomez-Gomez has failed to show the district court clearly 

erred in finding he was not entitled to a minor role adjustment. In 

analyzing the issue, the district court assessed Gomez-Gomez’s 

role in the relevant conduct, noting that Gomez-Gomez was hired 

to deliver drugs and, at times, navigated and piloted the vessel. The 

district court also found that Gomez-Gomez’s role in the 

conspiracy was the same as the other two mariners arrested aboard 

the vessel—the co-defendants “all held a similar role, and that role 

was to transport the drugs safely to a destination.” Gomez-Gomez

points to no evidence undermining these findings. Accordingly, 

Gomez-Gomez fails to carry his burden to demonstrate that the

district court clearly erred by finding Gomez-Gomez did not 

qualify for a role reduction. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10758 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 10 of 11
21-10758 Opinion of the Court 11

* * *

For these reasons, we affirm Gomez-Gomez’s sentence. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10758 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 11 of 11