Court Opinion

ID: 9959949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 21:00:50.245436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.445332
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12689    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12689
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DAVID RICARDO RIVERON-VALDES,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 9:23-cr-80042-RLR-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12689     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/12/2024    Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-12689

       Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               David Riveron-Valdes appeals his sentence for encouraging
       and inducing an alien to illegally enter and reside in the United
       States.    Because the district court correctly applied the
       enhancement for a firearm having been discharged during the
       offense, and because Riveron-Valdes’s sentence is substantively
       reasonable, we affirm.
                                        I.
               Late one night in February 2023, United States Customs and
       Border Protection Air and Marine Operations spotted a suspected
       smuggling vessel traveling toward the United States from the
       Bahamas. After surveilling the vessel throughout the night, AMO
       attempted to interdict the smuggling vessel within the territorial
       waters of the United States off the coast of Florida. AMO engaged
       its vessel’s blue enforcement lights, sirens, spotlights, and
       flashlights to initiate an investigatory stop, but the smuggling
       vessel kept heading toward the United States. With the captain of
       the smuggling vessel not cooperating, the AMO deployed two
       warning flares, prompting the rogue vessel to finally slow to a stop.
             Sure enough, the vessel was found to be captained by
       Riveron-Valdes, a Cuban national, and there were eleven other
       non-citizens on board. Several of the vessel’s passengers were
       young children, including a two-year old, a four-year-old, and two
USCA11 Case: 23-12689      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 04/12/2024     Page: 3 of 5

       23-12689               Opinion of the Court                         3

       nine-month-old children. There was no food or water onboard the
       vessel. Nor were there any life jackets.
             Riveron-Valdes was charged with eleven counts of
       knowingly encouraging and inducing aliens to illegally enter and
       reside in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
       § 1324(a)(1)(B)(iii) (Counts 1–11), and one count of failing to obey
       an order to heave to a vessel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2237(a)(1)
       (Count 12). He pleaded guilty to Count 1, and the remaining
       counts were dismissed.
              At sentencing, Riveron-Valdes’s base offense level was
       subject to several enhancements. Relevant to this appeal, his
       offense level was increased by seven levels pursuant to U.S.
       Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.1(b)(5)(A) because a firearm was
       discharged during the offense—namely, the warning shots fired by
       the AMO. The Guidelines imprisonment range was 46–57 months
       imprisonment, but the district court decided that a downward
       variance was appropriate and ultimately sentenced Riveron-Valdes
       to 37 months imprisonment with two years of supervised release.
                                        II.
               Riveron-Valdes objects to the application of the seven-level
       enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5) because he did not
       personally possess or discharge a firearm during the offense. This
       Court reviews a district court’s factual findings for clear error, and
       the application of those facts to the Guidelines de novo. United
       States v. McQueen, 670 F.3d 1168, 1169 (11th Cir. 2012).
USCA11 Case: 23-12689      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/12/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12689

               Riveron-Valdes’s argument is foreclosed by binding
       precedent. In United States v. McQueen, we heard an appeal from an
       almost identical set of facts. There, a smuggler heading to Florida
       led Customs and Border Protection on a boat chase, prompting the
       officers to fire two illuminated warning shots. Id. We affirmed the
       application of the sentencing enhancement because McQueen’s
       actions “induced” the discharge of the firearm; “a ‘reasonable’ alien
       smuggler who flees from law enforcement on the high seas would
       foresee the use of illuminated warning shots to gain compliance.”
       Id. at 1171. So too here. Because the discharge of a firearm by law
       enforcement was a reasonably foreseeable result of Riveron-
       Valdes’s nautical evasion, the enhancement was properly applied.
              He also argues that his sentence is substantively
       unreasonable. Specifically, he argues that the district court did not
       consider the relevant factors, especially his lack of criminal history.
       We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse
       of discretion. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188–89 (11th Cir.
       2010) (en banc). We will vacate a sentence only if “we are left with
       the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
       clear error of judgment.” Id. at 1190 (quotation omitted). The
       party challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that
       the sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 1191 n.16.
              Riveron-Valdes did not meet this burden. The district court
       considered the § 3553(a) factors. It acknowledged that Riveron-
       Valdes had no criminal history, and that the various enhancements
       raised his base offense level to the “higher side.” But it also
USCA11 Case: 23-12689     Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 5 of 5

       23-12689              Opinion of the Court                        5

       considered the seriousness of the crime, the need for general
       deterrence, and the fact that Riveron-Valdes created the risk of a
       “catastrophic outcome” had something gone wrong with his vessel
       during the clandestine voyage. Taking all of that into account, the
       court chose to vary downward to a sentence of 37 months,
       followed by two years of supervised release. We cannot say that
       this was a clear error of judgment, nor is there any evidence that
       the district court weighed an improper factor. Irey, 612 F.3d at
       1189.
                                    *      *       *
             Because the application of the sentence enhancement to
       Riveron-Valdes’s case is controlled by binding precedent, and
       because the ensuing sentence was substantively reasonable, the
       sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.