Opinion ID: 175668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of Huerta’s Sentence

Text: We review a final sentence for reasonableness, applying the abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005). When a defendant has been given the opportunity to raise an objection and failed to do so, we review for plain error. United States v. Canty, 570 F.3d 1251, 5 1256-57 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). Under plain-error review, the defendant initially must establish that the district court committed an error, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005). Huerta did not object to his sentence as unreasonable and he cannot show plain error in the sentence imposed. Huerta faced a mandatory minimum sentence, which is precisely the sentence the court imposed. Nothing permitted the court to sentence Huerta below this mandatory minimum,2 and Huerta has offered nothing to show that the court erred or that his sentence is unreasonable. AFFIRMED. 2 Generally, a court is bound by the mandatory minimum sentence unless the defendant qualified for a reduction under the safety-valve provision or the government moved for a reduction based on substantial assistance. Neither circumstance is present here. 6