Court Opinion

ID: 9408104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 16:00:53.775452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.800451
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13140   Document: 22-1    Date Filed: 07/11/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-13140
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JOAQUIN ELIAS PALMA-PADILLA,
       a.k.a. Palma
       a.k.a. Palmera
       a.k.a. El de los Cocos
       a.k.a. Jacob
       a.k.a. Israel 26
       a.k.a. lmdio,

                                                Defendant-Appellant.
USCA11 Case: 22-13140     Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023    Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-13140

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20657-DPG-5
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Joaquin Elias Palma-Padilla appeals his 120-month sentence,
       a downward variance from the guideline range of 135-168 months,
       for conspiracy to import more than 5 kilograms of cocaine into the
       United States. He argues that his sentence is substantively unrea-
       sonable and that favorable mitigating factors warranted a further
       downward variance than that granted by the district court.
              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, 51 (2007).
              The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but
       not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes” of
       § 3553(a), including the need to reflect the seriousness of the of-
       fense, promote respect for the law, provide punishment for the of-
       fense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the de-
       fendant’s future criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In
       imposing a particular sentence, the court must also consider the
       nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and character-
       istics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the
USCA11 Case: 22-13140      Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 07/11/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       22-13140                Opinion of the Court                          3

       applicable guideline range, the pertinent policy statements of the
       Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentenc-
       ing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id.
       § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7). “The district court is not required to explicitly
       address each of the § 3553(a) factors or all of the mitigating evi-
       dence. Rather, [a]n acknowledgment [that] the district court has
       considered the defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors will
       suffice.” United States v. Taylor, 997 F.3d 1348, 1354-55 (11th Cir.
       2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted, alterations in origi-
       nal).
               The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of es-
       tablishing that it is unreasonable based on the facts of the case and
       the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378
       (11th Cir. 2010). We will not substitute our own judgment for that
       of the sentencing court and will sometimes affirm the district court
       even if we would have done something differently because the
       question is whether the district court’s decision was “in the ballpark
       of permissible outcomes.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d
       1249, 1257 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). We will va-
       cate a defendant’s sentence only if we are “left with the definite and
       firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of
       judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence
       that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the
       facts of the case.” United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 936 (11th
       Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted).
USCA11 Case: 22-13140      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13140

              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) (quotation marks omitted).
              The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is commit-
       ted to the district court’s sound discretion. United States v. Ramirez-
       Gonzalez, 755 F.3d 1267, 1272-73 (11th Cir. 2014). In considering
       the § 3553(a) factors, the district court need not explicitly address
       each factor or all the mitigating evidence. United States v. Taylor,
       997 F.3d 1348, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 2021). Instead, an acknowledg-
       ment that the district court has considered the defendant’s argu-
       ments and the § 3553(a) factors will suffice. Id.
              As we have previously recognized, a district court’s careful
       consideration of the § 3553(a) factors is not unreasonable simply
       because the defendant disagrees with the court’s assessment of
       those factors. United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir.
       2006). Moreover, 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). Indeed, a district court’s imposition
       of a sentence within the guideline range and well below the statu-
       tory maximum penalty indicates reasonableness. United States v.
       Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309-10 (11th Cir. 2016).
USCA11 Case: 22-13140      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 07/11/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       22-13140               Opinion of the Court                         5

               Palma-Padilla’s sentence is substantively reasonable. The
       district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the nature and
       circumstances of the offense and his history and characteristics.
       The court conducted an individualized assessment, reviewed the
       presentence investigation report, considered the arguments raised
       at sentencing, and reasonably applied the sentencing factors under
       18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It was within the district court’s discretion as
       to how much weight to assign a particular sentencing factor in view
       of Palma-Padilla’s mitigation arguments. The court had discretion
       in weighing the sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion
       by not varying its sentence further downward based on Palma-Pa-
       dilla’s personal circumstances. See Ramirez-Gonzalez, 755 F.3d at
       1272-73. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the 120-month sentence
       here was a downward variance from the guideline range of 135-168
       months and well below the statutory maximum of life, both of
       which are indicators that the sentence is substantively reasonable.
       See Croteau, 819 F.3d at 1310. Although the district court did not
       adopt Palma-Padilla’s requested sentence, that does not compel the
       conclusion that it abused its discretion, nor does it suggest that the
       court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
             AFFIRMED.