Court Opinion

ID: 9896597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-13 20:00:49.112024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:08.627149
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14122    Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023   Page: 1 of 10

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-14122
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        NOE CUEVAS MOLINA,
        a.k.a. Noe Cuevas,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.
                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00379-SCB-AEP-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14122      Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 2 of 10

        2                      Opinion of the Court                22-14122

        Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Noe Cuevas Molina appeals his total sentence of 168
        months’ imprisonment—a downward variance from the guideline
        range of 210 to 262 months. The only issue before this Court is
        whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Because we
        find that Cuevas Molina’s sentence is substantively reasonable, we
        affirm.
                                         I.
               Cuevas Molina and five co-defendants were charged in a su-
        perseding indictment with conspiracy to distribute and to possess
        with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while
        aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
        (Count 1), and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms
        or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction
        of the United States (Count 2). Cuevas Molina, alone, was also
        charged with failure to obey a lawful order by a law enforcement
        officer (Count 3). He pled guilty to all three charges without a plea
        agreement.
               Before sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presen-
        tence investigation report (“PSI”), which reported the following
        facts. On November 18, 2021, law enforcement officers patrolling
        the eastern Pacific Ocean spotted a “go-fast vessel” about 250 miles
        south of Salina Cruz, Mexico. A United States Coast Guard board-
        ing team pursued the go-fast vessel, which appeared to be dead in
USCA11 Case: 22-14122       Document: 33-1       Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 3 of 10

        22-14122                Opinion of the Court                           3

        the water. As the Coast Guard cutter approached, however, the
        occupants of the go-fast vessel revved their engines and sped away.
        The Coast Guard ordered the vessel to stop, but the master—later
        identified as Cuevas Molina—shook his head “no” and refused. At
        some point during the twenty-minute pursuit that followed, Cue-
        vas Molina made a satellite phone call. One of the boarding-team
        officers tried to stop the go-fact vessel by pulling the kill switch with
        an aluminum boat hook, but one of the drug traffickers grabbed
        the hook away, broke it, and struck the officer’s hand and head
        with it. Finally, the go-fast vessel slowed down enough that the
        boarding team was able to assume control.
               Upon the Coast Guard’s boarding, Cuevas Molina identified
        himself as the master of the vessel and claimed Mexican nationality
        for both himself and the vessel. Mexico, upon request from the
        United States, was unable to confirm or deny the nationality of the
        vessel, so the Coast Guard treated it as a stateless vessel subject to
        the jurisdiction of the United States. Cuevas Molina confessed that
        the purpose of their sea voyage was to transport cocaine. Indeed,
        during a search of the go-fast vessel, the Coast Guard boarding
        team found several fuel barrels and kilo-sized packages of cocaine,
        totaling approximately 1,294 kilograms.
               When asked about his participation, Cuevas Molina told the
        probation officer that he committed his crimes because he wanted
        to buy his children a computer to use for their schoolwork, but he
        also insisted he was expecting to participate in a “rescue mission”
        and that he was “forced to participate.”
USCA11 Case: 22-14122      Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 4 of 10

        4                      Opinion of the Court                22-14122

                The PSI grouped the three counts and calculated a base of-
        fense level of 38 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1), which sets the
        base level for offenses involving at least 450 kilograms of cocaine.
        The PSI then applied a two-point enhancement because Cuevas
        Molina was the master of the vessel. The PSI did not recommend
        a two-point safety-valve reduction because Cuevas Molina had
        failed to complete a truthful debrief with the government, as re-
        quired under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Cuevas Molina’s adjusted offense
        subtotal was therefore 40. The PSI then recommended that Cue-
        vas Molina be credited all three acceptance-of-responsibility points,
        bringing his total offense level down to 37.
               Based on an offense level of 37 and a criminal history cate-
        gory of I, Cuevas Molina’s guideline range was 210 to 262 months
        imprisonment. The statutory maximum sentence was life. As fac-
        tors potentially warranting a downward variance, the PSI identified
        Cuevas Molina’s childhood poverty and his lack of education.
        Neither Cuevas Molina nor the government lodged any objections
        to the PSI.
               Cuevas Molina filed a sentencing memorandum and motion
        for downward departure in which he conceded that he was the
        master of the vessel but nevertheless insisted he was just a “small
        pawn in the world of international trafficking of cocaine.” He also
        argued that principles of parity suggested a significantly lower sen-
        tence because his co-conspirators had been sentenced to 96 and 108
        months. Finally, Cuevas Molina argued that a guideline sentence
        was greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of 18 U.S.C. §
USCA11 Case: 22-14122      Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 5 of 10

        22-14122               Opinion of the Court                        5

        3553(a). Cuevas Molina ultimately urged the district court to sen-
        tence him to the lowest statutorily permitted sentence, 120
        months.
                At sentencing, the district court confirmed that it had read
        the PSI, that the guideline range was 210 to 262 months imprison-
        ment, and that there were no unresolved objections to either the
        application of the guidelines or the facts reported in the PSI. The
        district court also recounted its sentencing of the co-conspirators,
        recalling that four of them had been sentenced to 108 months and
        one had been sentenced to 97 months. As to those sentences, the
        district court explained that two of the co-conspirators had benefit-
        ted from U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motions and that the others received
        downward variances of at least two levels.
               Cuevas Molina reiterated to the district court that he ac-
        cepted responsibility, admitted that he was the master of the vessel,
        and had attempted to debrief with the government but was too
        fearful of the drug cartel to provide full and truthful information.
        Cuevas Molina, however, then suggested to the district court that
        one of his co-conspirators was actually the master. Cuevas Molina
        again asked for the statutory minimum sentence of 120 months,
        arguing that ten years would be sufficient, but no more than nec-
        essary, to punish him and to deter others.
               The government, in response, urged the district court not to
        vary down any more than the two levels it had given to some of
        the co-conspirators. That two-level variance, the government sug-
        gested, could result in a 168-month sentence, which, while
USCA11 Case: 22-14122      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 6 of 10

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14122

        significantly higher than the co-conspirators’ sentences, appropri-
        ately reflected Cuevas Molina’s role as master of the vessel and his
        failure to provide an honest and complete debrief. Moreover, the
        government argued that it was appropriate for Cuevas Molina to
        be sentenced more harshly because he alone was found guilty of
        failing to heed the Coast Guard officers’ instruction to stop, setting
        off the high-speed chase at sea.
               The district court sentenced Cuevas Molina to 168 months’
        imprisonment for Counts 1 and 2 and 60 months’ imprisonment
        for Count 3, all to be served concurrently, followed by 5 years of
        supervised release. In pronouncing the sentence, the district court
        specifically noted that it had considered the advisory guidelines, the
        parties’ arguments, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 3551 and 3553. In varying
        down two levels, the district court explained that it did so both to
        prevent any disparity in sentencing and in light of Cuevas Molina’s
        poverty, his desire to support his children, and his lack of educa-
        tion. After explaining the variance, the district court noted that it
        found that this sentence was “sufficient, but not greater than nec-
        essary.” Before concluding the hearing, the district court asked
        Cuevas Molina if he was satisfied with his lawyer’s representation,
        and he affirmed, “Yes, Your Honor. Of course.”
              This timely appeal ensued.
USCA11 Case: 22-14122      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 7 of 10

        22-14122               Opinion of the Court                         7

                                         II.
               When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we con-
        sider the totality of the circumstances under a deferential
        abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41,
        51 (2007). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of
        establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record
        and the factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Tome,
        611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
               The district court abuses its discretion when it “(1) fails to
        afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant
        weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant fac-
        tor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the
        proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir.
        2010) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174
        (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc)). “[A] district court commits a clear error
        of judgment when it considers the proper factors but balances them
        unreasonably.” Id. However, the district court does not have to
        give all the factors equal weight and is given discretion to attach
        great weight to one factor over another. United States v. Rosales-
        Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). The weight given to
        any § 3553(a) factor is left to the sound discretion of the district
        court, and we will not substitute our own judgment by reweighing
        the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1327
        (11th Cir. 2013). While we do not apply a presumption of reason-
        ableness to sentences within the guideline range, we ordinarily ex-
        pect such a sentence to be reasonable. United States v. Stanley, 739
        F.3d 633, 656 (11th Cir. 2014). Thus, a sentence imposed well
USCA11 Case: 22-14122      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 8 of 10

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14122

        below the guideline range is likewise an indicator of reasonable-
        ness. Id. A sentence that is well below the statutory maximum for
        the crime is also an indicator of a reasonable sentence. United States
        v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1364 (11th Cir. 2014).
               Section 3553(a) requires that the district court “shall impose
        a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to: (A) reflect
        the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and
        provide just punishment for the offense; (B) afford adequate deter-
        rence to criminal conduct; (C) protect the public from further
        crimes of the defendant; and (D) provide the defendant with
        needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other
        correctional treatment in the most effective manner.
        § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(D). Additionally, the court must consider: (1) the
        nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and char-
        acteristics of the defendant; (3) the kinds of sentences available;
        (4) the guideline sentencing range; (5) any pertinent policy state-
        ments; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities
        among defendants with similar records who have been convicted
        of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any
        victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
               “A sentencing court’s findings of fact may be based on un-
        disputed statements in the PSI.” United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d
        825, 832 (11th Cir. 2006). A failure to object to allegations of fact
        in a PSI admits those facts for sentencing purposes. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-14122       Document: 33-1       Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 9 of 10

        22-14122                Opinion of the Court                          9

                                          III.
               Cuevas Molina argues that his sentence is substantively un-
        reasonable because it is “unreasonably punitive given the applica-
        ble 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, most notably the need to avoid un-
        warranted disparities in sentences among similarly situated defend-
        ants.” We disagree.
               We note, as a general matter, “that the district courts have
        institutional advantages in applying and weighing § 3553(a)’s fac-
        tors in individual cases.” United States v. McQueen, 727 F.3d 1144,
        1156 (11th Cir. 2013). In light of that discretion, “it is only the rare
        sentence that will be substantively unreasonable.” Id.
                When considering a claim of unwarranted disparity, we first
        consider whether the defendant is similarly situated to the defend-
        ants to whom he compares himself. United States v. Duperval, 777
        F.3d 1324, 1338 (11th Cir. 2015). Section 3553(a)(6) counsels that
        district courts should “avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
        among defendants with similar records who have been found
        guilty of similar conduct,” but Cuevas Molina is not similarly situ-
        ated to his co-defendants. Cuevas Molina identifies two key details
        that set him apart from his co-conspirators: the facts that he “was
        purportedly in charge of the vessel at issue [and] did not provide
        substantial assistance or fully debrief.” Cuevas Molina downplays
        those two distinctions, describing his leadership role as “largely
        nominal” and justifying his failure to truthfully debrief based on
        fear of reprisal. We are not persuaded. The district court correctly
        determined that Cuevas Molina’s conduct—and, as a result, his
USCA11 Case: 22-14122      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023      Page: 10 of 10

        10                      Opinion of the Court                  22-14122

        culpability—differed from that of his co-conspirators in a way that
        warranted a harsher sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Cabezas-
        Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 612 (11th Cir. 2020) (holding that a captain
        of a vessel containing drugs and a drug smuggler were not similarly
        situated and warranted disparate sentences); United States v. Berg-
        man, 852 F.3d 1046, 1071 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that criminal de-
        fendant who was more involved in a Medicare fraud scheme was
        more culpable than his co-defendant); United States v. Moran, 778
        F.3d 942, 983 (11th Cir. 2015) (same); see also United States v. McNair,
        605 F.3d 1152, 1231–32 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining the differences
        between two co-defendants that warranted disparate sentences).
               But even if Cuevas Molina had demonstrated a sentencing
        disparity, we conclude that he has failed to show that any such dis-
        parity would outweigh the remaining § 3553(a) factors, all of which
        the district court considered before imposing sentence. Finally,
        Cuevas Molina’s 168-month sentence is far lower than either the
        statutory-maximum life sentence or his guideline range of 210 to
        262 months. Both comparisons further indicate that the sentence
        is reasonable. See Stanley, 739 F.3d at 656; Dougherty, 754 F.3d at
        1364.
               For these reasons, we affirm Cuevas Molina’s sentence.
               AFFIRMED.