Opinion ID: 204395
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: If the defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C.

Text: § 555(c), 4 plus the offense level applicable to the underlying smuggling offense. If the resulting offense level is less than level 16, increase to level 16. (2) 16, if the defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 555(a); or (3) 8, if the defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 555(b). 20 Faced with “no guideline [that] expressly ha[d] been promulgated” and no “sufficiently analogous guideline,” the district court followed the sentencing guidelines’ instruction to select a sentence based on the § 3553 factors.5 See U.S.S.G. § 2X5.1. The § 3553 factors include, among others: the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; [t]he need for the sentence imposed– to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; to afford adequate deterrence . . .; to protect the public . . .; and to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment; [and] [t]he need to avoid unwarranted disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. 5 We need not address whether the district court erred by considering, even if not applying, the proposed submersible vessel guideline. The district court clearly explained that it would have applied the same sentence based solely on the § 3553 factors. See United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he Supreme Court and this Court have long recognized that it is not necessary to decide guidelines issues or remand cases for new sentence proceedings where the guidelines error, if any, did not affect the sentence.” (quotation marks omitted)). We also need not address Mr. Meneses’s argument that the district court erred by implicitly applying an eight-level enhancement under the proposed subterranean vessel guideline, § 2X7.2(b)(1)(C), because defendants sank their vessel. The district court explained that had it applied the proposed subterranean vessel guideline, it “would have found that the enhancement for scuttling is more than appropriate under the facts as [the court] kn[e]w them.” The indictment alleged that defendants’ vessel sank within minutes after defendants jumped from it. Defendants never refuted this point. Because the district court calculated defendants’ sentences based on an application of the § 3553 factors alone, however, we need not decide whether it would have been proper for the district court to apply the enhancement under the facts of this case. See Keene, 470 F.3d at 1349. 21 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court expressly considered the § 3553 factors. The court stated that it imposed defendants’ particular sentences to send a message to deter drug cartels from using submersible vessels to smuggle drugs, to protect the public, and to provide proper punishment, especially in light of the seriousness of the offense. The district court considered the parties’ arguments and gave a reasoned basis for its sentence. That is all that we require of sentencing courts. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). We therefore conclude that the district court committed no procedural error in selecting defendants’ sentence.