Court Opinion

ID: 9364629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 20:00:56.866261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:39.460996
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10347    Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 01/19/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10347
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       RAFAEL ALEMAN-RIVERA,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 8:18-cr-00596-VMC-CPT-8
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10347     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-10347

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Rafael Aleman-Rivera appeals his sentence of 180 months’
       imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5
       kilograms or more of cocaine, which was a downward variance
       from the advisory guideline range of 210 to 262 months. On ap-
       peal, Aleman-Rivera argues that his sentence was procedurally un-
       reasonable because the District Court failed to consider each of the
       18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the need to protect the public
       from the defendant’s future crimes.
                                        I.
              Aleman-Rivera entered a plea of guilty, which was accepted
       by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Flor-
       ida. At the end of Aleman-Rivera’s sentencing hearing, the District
       Court said,
             Let me first acknowledge the factors to consider in
             imposing sentence as set forth in Section 3553(a) of
             Title 18. The sentence should reflect the seriousness
             of the offense, promote respect for the law, act as a
             deterrent, and should be sufficient but not greater
             than necessary to achieve those purposes.
             I don’t think danger to the community is a considera-
             tion as we sit here today, but I do echo a comment
             [the government] made, that the impact of cocaine on
             our communities is well known and well
USCA11 Case: 22-10347      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-10347                Opinion of the Court                          3

              documented. Whether it contributes to drug addic-
              tion or worse, the collateral crimes, it is a danger and
              has been a danger to our community.
               Tr. of Sentencing 92. Aleman-Rivera did not object to the
       final sentence afterwards.
                                      II.
               We generally review the procedural reasonableness of a sen-
       tence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
       51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). When a defendant does not raise a
       relevant objection at the time of sentencing, however, we review
       for plain error. United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307
       (11th Cir. 2014). Plain error is error that is plain, that affects a de-
       fendant’s substantial rights and seriously affects the fairness, integ-
       rity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v.
       Clark, 274 F.3d 1325, 1326 (11th Cir. 2001).
               The district court must impose a sentence sufficient, but not
       greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes listed in
       § 3553(a)(2), including the need to reflect the seriousness of the of-
       fense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the
       offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the de-
       fendant’s future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(C).
       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 applica-
       ble guideline range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentenc-
       ing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing
USCA11 Case: 22-10347      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 01/19/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-10347

       disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id.
       § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
              A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if the district
       court improperly calculates the guideline range, treats the Guide-
       lines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors, sentences
       based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to adequately explain its
       chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. The district
       court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly con-
       sidered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the
       § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1326
       (11th Cir. 2013). Generally, “[a]n acknowledgment the district
       court has considered the defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a)
       factors will suffice.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324
       (11th Cir. 2008).
              Here, the District Court’s sentence was procedurally reason-
       able because it adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors, includ-
       ing the need to protect the public from Aleman-Rivera’s future
       criminal conduct. Though the appellant’s brief quotes part of the
       District Court’s words, it quotes them selectively. Appellant’s Br.
       at 13. While the District Court may not have identified the need
       to protect the public from future crimes by the defendant in the
       quoted portion, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C), the Court clearly ad-
       dressed this factor in the very next sentence. Accordingly, we af-
       firm.
              AFFIRMED.