Court Opinion

ID: 9947420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 20:01:38.080199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:26.544918
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11760    Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 03/04/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11760
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       THOMAS ANTONIO STUART,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-20064-RNS-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11760      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 03/04/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11760

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and LAGOA, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Thomas Stuart appeals his sentence of 60 months of impris-
       onment imposed after he pleaded guilty to three counts of bringing
       an alien to the United States for commercial and private financial
       gain. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). He argues that the five-year man-
       datory minimum did not apply to him because he was a first-time
       offender. The United States moves for a summary affirmance. Be-
       cause “the position of [the United States] . . . is clearly right as a
       matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
       outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d
       1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), we grant that motion and affirm.
              Section 1324(a)(2) provides a mandatory-minimum sentence
       of three years of imprisonment for “a ﬁrst or second violation of
       subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii),” and it provides a mandatory-mini-
       mum sentence of ﬁve years “for any other violation.” 8 U.S.C.
       § 1324(a)(2). In Ortega-Torres, we held that an oﬀender commits a
       separate violation for each alien brought to the United States for
       commercial or ﬁnancial gain. United States v. Ortega-Torres, 174 F.3d
       1199, 1201 (11th Cir. 1999).
              Ortega-Torres controls. Stuart pleaded guilty to violating sec-
       tion 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) three times by smuggling three aliens into the
       United States for ﬁnancial gain. Each alien counted as a separate
       violation, id., so Stuart was subject to the ﬁve-year mandatory
USCA11 Case: 23-11760      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 03/04/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-11760               Opinion of the Court                          3

       minimum on his third count of conviction. See 8 U.S.C.
       § 1324(a)(2). Stuart disagrees with our decision in Ortega-Torres, but
       that precedent controls our resolution of this issue. See United States
       v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008).
             Because the position of the United States is clearly correct
       as a matter of law, we grant the motion for summary aﬃrmance.
       Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.
              AFFIRMED.