Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-14
Citations: 273 F. App'x 840
Docket Number: No. 07-12768
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 273
Pages: 840–841

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-12768.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 14, 2008.
William R. Barzee, William R. Barzee, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WILSON, COX and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Honorable Pasco M. Bowman II, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Valenzuela pled guilty to 28 counts of knowingly inducing aliens to enter the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The applicable Guidelines range was 33 to 41 months' imprisonment, but the district court sentenced Valenzuela to the statutory maximum of 60 months' imprisonment.
On appeal, Valenzuela argues that the sentence was not reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. In addition to his arguments concerning the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, Valenzuela more specifically asserts that, under § 3553(a)(6), the district court created an unwarranted sentencing disparity between himself and his co-defendant, who received a 33-month sentence.
After a careful consideration of the briefs, review of the record on appeal, and having heard oral argument in the matter, we are unable to conclude that the district court misapplied § 3553(a)(6). Nor are we able to conclude that the sentence Valenzuela received was otherwise unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.