Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Osvaldo Domingo CEBALLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-02
Citations: 632 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 14-12420
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Osvaldo Domingo CEBALLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Osvaldo Domingo CEBALLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-12420.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 2, 2016.
Amit Agarwal, Kathleen Mary Salyer, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Brian Jay Shack, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Jennifer C. Nucci, U.S. Attorney’s Office, West Palm Beach, FL, Roger Powell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Laud-erdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Jonathon Joffe, Joffe Law, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation,

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Osvaldo Domingo Ceballo appeals his convictions for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and one count of possession of five or more kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute. He also appeals his ensuing total 216-month sentence, imposed within the advisory guidelines range. Specifically, Ceballo asks us to consider:
(1) Whether the district court erred in denying Ceballo's motion to ' suppress.
(2) Whether there was insufficient evidence to support Ceballo's convictions.
(3) Whether the district court abused its discretion in permitting the government to introduce certain evidence at trial.
(4) Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Ceballo's request for a theory-of-defense jury instruction.
(5) Whether the district court committed sentencing errors by applying a role enhancement, denying Ceballo's request for safety valve protection, and denying Ceballo's request for a variance.
After thoroughly considering these issues in light of the relevant law, the record on appeal, and the parties' arguments in their briefs and at oral argument, we hold there is no reversible error.
AFFIRMED.