Court Opinion

ID: 9395936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 21:00:45.037126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:12.817064
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10982    Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 05/18/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10982
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       RENO JOEL DEVEAUX,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20527-RNS-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10982      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 05/18/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10982

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Reno Deveaux, Jr., appeals his 24-month sentence, imposed
       after he pleaded guilty to 20 counts of encouraging and inducing
       aliens to enter the United States: a violation of 8 U.S.C. §
       1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (v)(II). No reversible error has been shown; we
       affirm.
               Briefly stated, Deveaux’s convictions stem from these facts.
       In September 2021, agents with the United States Customs and
       Border Protection Air and Marine Operations detected a 23-foot
       vessel near the Bahamas traveling toward the United States. When
       the vessel crossed into United States waters, agents attempted to
       stop the vessel using blue lights, sirens, and spotlights. When the
       vessel failed to stop, agents fired warning shots in front of the ves-
       sel. The vessel continued moving. Agents observed the vessel’s
       pilot -- later identified as Deveaux -- crouched under the console
       and steering erratically. Agents ultimately stopped the vessel by
       firing disabling shots at the vessel’s engine. Upon boarding the ves-
       sel, agents discovered a total of 21 people on board (none of whom
       were United States citizens) and a single lifejacket.
              Before sentencing, a probation officer prepared a Presen-
       tence Investigation Report (“PSI”). The PSI assigned a total offense
       level of 21 based on these guideline calculations: (1) a base offense
       level of 12, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(a)(3); (2) a 3-level increase because the
USCA11 Case: 22-10982      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 05/18/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       22-10982                Opinion of the Court                         3

       offense involved 20 aliens, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(A); (3) an increase
       to an offense level of 22 because a firearm was discharged, U.S.S.G.
       § 2L1.1(b)(5)(A); (4) a 2-level increase for “intentionally or reck-
       lessly creat[ing] a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury
       to another person,” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6); and (5) a total 3-level
       reduction for acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), (b).
       Based on a total offense level of 21 and Deveaux’s criminal history
       category of I, the PSI calculated an advisory guidelines range of be-
       tween 37 and 46 months’ imprisonment.
               Deveaux filed objections to the PSI. First, Deveaux objected
       to the seven-point enhancement for discharging a firearm: De-
       veaux argued the enhancement should not apply when a firearm is
       discharged by law enforcement and not by the defendant. Deveaux
       also argued that the district court should apply a three-level reduc-
       tion -- under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(1) -- because he says “the offense
       was committed other than for profit.” Deveaux raised no objec-
       tions to the enhancements applied for an offense involving 20 al-
       iens and for creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily
       injury, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(A) and (b)(6).
               The district court overruled Deveaux’s objections. The dis-
       trict court adopted the PSI’s advisory guideline range of 37 to 46
       months. The district court imposed a below-guidelines sentence of
       24-months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. At
       sentencing, the district court also said explicitly that -- even if the
       district court had sustained Deveaux’s objections to the two
USCA11 Case: 22-10982       Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 05/18/2023      Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   22-10982

       challenged guideline provisions -- the court would have imposed
       the same 24-month sentence.
              “We review the district court’s interpretation of the Sen-
       tencing Guidelines de novo and accept its factual findings unless
       clearly erroneous.” United States v. Barner, 572 F.3d 1239, 1247
       (11th Cir. 2009).
               Where -- as in this case -- the district court says that it would
       have imposed the same sentence irrespective of the disputed guide-
       line calculation, we need not resolve the guideline issue if the sen-
       tence imposed is substantively reasonable. See United States v.
       Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2006). In determining the
       reasonableness of the sentence, “we must assume that there was
       guidelines error -- that the guidelines issue should have been de-
       cided in the way the defendant argued and the advisory range re-
       duced accordingly -- and then ask whether the final sentence result-
       ing from consideration of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors would
       still be reasonable.” Id.
              We evaluate the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
       under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. United
       States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). In
       reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we con-
       sider the totality of the circumstances and whether the sentence
       achieves the purposes of sentencing stated in section 3553(a). See
       United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
USCA11 Case: 22-10982         Document: 38-1         Date Filed: 05/18/2023          Page: 5 of 6

       22-10982                   Opinion of the Court                                 5

               The purposes of sentencing include promoting respect for
       the law, providing just punishment, deterring criminal conduct,
       and protecting the public from further crimes. 18 U.S.C. §
       3553(a)(2). A sentencing court should also consider the nature and
       circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
       defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the Guidelines range,
       policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, and the need to
       avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
       (3)-(7). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of es-
       tablishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both the
       record and the section 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Talley,
       431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
              If the district court had decided the two disputed guideline
       issues in Deveaux’s favor, Deveaux’s advisory guidelines range
       would have been 18 to 24 months. * We must now determine
       whether the sentence imposed was reasonable, “assuming exactly
       the same conduct and other factors in the case,” but with an

       * This assumed guidelines range is based on a revised total offense level of 15
       and a criminal history category of I. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, pt. A. We calculate
       the revised total offense level using the following guideline provisions: (1) a
       base-offense level of 12, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(a)(3); (2) a 3-level reduction for an
       offense “committed other than for profit,” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(1); (3) a 3-level
       increase for an offense involving 20 aliens, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(A); (4) an
       increase to an offense level of 18 because “the offense involved intentionally
       or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to an-
       other person,” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6); and (5) a 3-point reduction for ac-
       ceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), (b).
USCA11 Case: 22-10982     Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 05/18/2023    Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-10982

       assumed guidelines range of 18 to 24 months, instead of 37 to 46
       months. See Keene, 470 F.3d at 1350.
              Given the totality of the circumstances and the section
       3553(a) factors, Deveaux’s 24-month sentence is substantively rea-
       sonable. Deveaux was involved in a scheme to transport unlaw-
       fully 20 non-citizens into the United States aboard an “overloaded”
       vessel that held only one life jacket. When intercepted by law en-
       forcement, Deveaux attempted to flee, engaged in erratic driving,
       and prompted law enforcement to fire at the vessel’s engine. At
       the sentencing hearing, the district court observed that Deveaux’s
       offense conduct -- including his refusal to stop for law enforcement
       -- “could have easily had somebody killed.”
              On this record, the district court could conclude reasonably
       that a sentence of 24 months was necessary to reflect the serious-
       ness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide
       just punishment. That the sentence is both within the assumed
       guidelines range (18-24 months) and well below the maximum stat-
       utory penalty (100 years) also supports a finding of reasonableness.
       See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324; 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii) (provid-
       ing a maximum term of imprisonment of five years per alien).
             AFFIRMED.