Court Opinion

ID: 9911538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 15:01:06.900246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:46.109161
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10119    Document: 46-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023   Page: 1 of 8

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10119
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ALEJANDRO ACEVEDO LUNA,

                                                  Defendant- Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cr-00020-CEM-DAB-2
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10119     Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 12/20/2023    Page: 2 of 8

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-10119

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Alejandro Acevedo Luna appeals his sentence of 180 months
       of imprisonment imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to
       possess with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of a substance
       containing fentanyl. 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A). Acevedo Luna
       argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He also ar-
       gues, for the first time on appeal, that his sentence is procedurally
       unreasonable. We affirm.
               Acevedo Luna agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to pos-
       sess with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl. Id. His
       written plea agreement included a factual basis for the crime, in
       which he admitted that he bought a one-kilogram package of fen-
       tanyl from Luis Omar Rosa Cotto and planned to sell the fentanyl
       for $33,000 with the help of Juan Carlos Garcia. Garcia later rec-
       orded a video of himself holding the same package of fentanyl. The
       next day, police officers lawfully stopped a vehicle in which Garcia
       and Acevedo Luna were traveling. Acevedo Luna was in the pas-
       senger seat, and officers found the package of fentanyl in the
       backseat on the passenger’s side. The package was identical to the
       one Acevedo Luna bought from Rosa Cotto and that was featured
       in Garcia’s video. Officers also found a loaded firearm, which Gar-
       cia stated was his. Acevedo Luna later admitted that he was travel-
       ing to transact a drug sale, Garcia was assisting him with the sale,
USCA11 Case: 23-10119      Document: 46-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 3 of 8

       23-10119               Opinion of the Court                         3

       and he obtained the fentanyl from Rosa Cotto. Agents found on
       Acevedo Luna’s cell phone a photograph sent by Rosa Cotto of the
       same package of fentanyl.
               Acevedo Luna’s presentence investigation report initially
       provided a base offense level of 30 based on the substance being
       pure fentanyl. United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual
       § 2D1.1(c)(5) (Nov. 2021). But after the substance was tested, the
       probation officer advised that the report would be amended to re-
       flect that the substance was fluorofentanyl, a fentanyl analogue,
       which would result in a higher base offense level of 34. Id.
       § 2D1.1(c)(3). Acevedo Luna objected that his plea agreement stip-
       ulated only that the substance was fentanyl. The government also
       objected to the initial report and argued that an obstruction-of-jus-
       tice enhancement should be applied because he had perjured him-
       self at Garcia’s trial by giving testimony that was inconsistent with
       his post-arrest statements and factual proffer, including that Garcia
       was unaware that they were driving to a drug deal when they were
       stopped, that Acevedo Luna never previously purchased drugs
       from Rosa Cotto, that Garcia never saw or discussed the drugs with
       Acevedo Luna, and that Garcia was not the person holding the
       drugs in the video. The government also objected that he should
       not receive a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
              The final presentence report provided an advisory sentenc-
       ing range of 188 to 235 months of imprisonment based on a total
       offense level of 36 and a criminal history category of I. Acevedo
       Luna’s total offense level was based on a base offense level of 34 for
USCA11 Case: 23-10119     Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 12/20/2023    Page: 4 of 8

       4                      Opinion of the Court                23-10119

       1,018.5 grams of fentanyl analogue, id., a two-level enhancement
       for the firearm, id. § 2D1.1(b)(1), a two-level enhancement for ob-
       struction of justice, id. § 3C1.1, and a two-level reduction for ac-
       ceptance of responsibility, id. § 3E1.1(a).
               At sentencing, Acevedo Luna confirmed that his guilty plea
       was unaffected by the substance being a fentanyl analogue instead
       of fentanyl and reaffirmed his guilty plea. He and the government
       requested a four-level downward variance to uphold the original
       signed plea agreement and to consider the sentence imposed on
       one of his codefendants. The district court granted the request for
       a “four-point level reduction” and adopted the undisputed factual
       statements and Guideline applications in the presentence report.
       The district court also determined that the acceptance-of-responsi-
       bility reduction applied because he reaffirmed his guilty plea.
              The district court invited the parties to discuss the obstruc-
       tion-of-justice enhancement for perjury. The government argued
       that Acevedo Luna’s perjury at Garcia’s trial was severe and could
       have resulted in a hung jury. Acevedo Luna explained that he
       changed his story because a jail guard told other inmates about his
       cooperation, which led to speculation about his frequent trips to
       court. He argued that he intended to tell the truth at Garcia’s trial
       but “froze” because he was afraid for his family. After the district
       court called Acevedo Luna’s decision to testify falsely before a jury
       “a severe action” that needed to be addressed, his counsel conceded
       that “it is extraordinary” and that he had never seen someone
       change their testimony and “do[] a 180 on the stand.” The district
USCA11 Case: 23-10119      Document: 46-1       Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 5 of 8

       23-10119                Opinion of the Court                          5

       court stated that it would accept Acevedo Luna’s explanation for
       his poor decision, but it also had to “consider the real possibility
       that [he] made this whole thing up in order to try to mitigate the
       impact of his false testimony at trial.” Acevedo Luna maintained
       that his story was plausible and emphasized that he had been coop-
       erative up until Garcia’s trial. With the obstruction-of-justice en-
       hancement, the probation officer explained that Acevedo Luna’s
       total offense level still was 36, because the district court would then
       vary downward by four levels. After applying the four-level down-
       ward variance, the district court stated that the advisory sentencing
       range was 121 to 151 months of imprisonment.
              The district court imposed a sentence of 180 months of im-
       prisonment. The district court explained that this was an “ex-
       tremely dangerous” offense and that it could not “imagine how
       many people [one kilogram of fentanyl] could kill.” The district
       court stated that it believed Acevedo Luna was “very involved” in
       the drug trade based on how he was able to procure $33,000 of fen-
       tanyl within hours of requesting it. The district court explained that
       the other problem was Acevedo Luna’s perjury. The district court
       explained that it “had the benefit of watching his body language”
       when he turned on the government at trial and saw that he re-
       mained “defiant and unapologetic” despite his self-contradictory
       statements about Garcia’s involvement. The district court stated
       that “the most dangerous person to the process is not the one who
       gets caught . . . but the one that tries to attack the foundation of the
       process.” It found that Acevedo Luna was “extremely dangerous”
       because instead of refusing to testify, he took a “very severe course
USCA11 Case: 23-10119       Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 12/20/2023      Page: 6 of 8

       6                       Opinion of the Court                   23-10119

       of action” in perjuring himself, which required a severe conse-
       quence. In explaining why Acevedo Luna’s sentence was 60
       months longer than Rosa Cotto’s sentence of 120 months, it stated:
       “Had [Acevedo Luna] followed [counsel’s] instructions and testi-
       fied truthfully or said he wasn’t going to testify, he could conceiv-
       ably be looking at the same sentence that Rosa Cotto got, but he’s
       not looking at that sentence now.” Acevedo Luna initially declined
       to object but later accepted an invitation by the district court to
       preserve an objection to the substantive reasonableness of his sen-
       tence due to the upward variance.
               We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of dis-
       cretion. United States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 636 (11th Cir. 2013).
       The district court imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence
       when it fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were
       due significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or
       irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in consider-
       ing the proper factors. United States v. Taylor, 997 F.3d 1348, 1355
       (11th Cir. 2021). The district court also “has considerable discretion
       in deciding whether the § 3553(a) factors justify a variance and the
       extent of one that is appropriate.” United States v. Oudomsine,
       57 F.4th 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2023). We will disturb the sentence
       if, but 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. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 23-10119       Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 12/20/2023      Page: 7 of 8

       23-10119                Opinion of the Court                           7

               Acevedo Luna’s sentence is substantively reasonable. The
       district court reasonably determined that varying upward to a sen-
       tence of 180 months was necessary to account for his “severe
       course of action” of defiantly and unapologetically perjuring him-
       self at Garcia’s trial and his serious offense involving a large amount
       of a lethal controlled substance. See Oudomsine, 57 F.4th at 1266. In
       finding that Acevedo Luna was an “extremely dangerous” person
       who had committed an “extremely dangerous” offense, the district
       court viewed his perjury as an attack on the foundation of judicial
       process and reasonably determined that the consequence for this
       “very severe course of action” must also be severe. The district
       court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Butler, 39 F.4th
       1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2022) (“[A] sentencing court may impose an
       upward variance based upon uncharged conduct as it relates to the
       history and characteristics of the defendant, as well as the need to
       promote respect for the law, afford adequate deterrence, and pro-
       tect the public.”).
               Acevedo Luna argues that the district court failed to con-
       sider whether the upward variance created unwarranted disparities
       with his codefendants’ sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). We
       disagree. Even if this were an appropriate basis for relief, see United
       States v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202, 1237 (11th Cir. 2015), Acevedo Luna
       is not similarly situated with his codefendants. Indeed, the district
       court explained to Acevedo Luna that if he had “testified truthfully
       or said he wasn’t going to testify, he could conceivably be looking
       at the same sentence that Rosa Cotto got, but he’s not looking at
       that sentence now.” And insofar as Acevedo Luna seeks to
USCA11 Case: 23-10119      Document: 46-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 8 of 8

       8                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10119

       challenge the procedural reasonableness of his sentence on this
       ground, he cannot establish that the district court plainly erred by
       not addressing this statutory sentencing factor, 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a)(6). See United States v. McBride, 511 F.3d 1293, 1297 (11th
       Cir. 2007) (“[A] district court need not account for every § 3553(a)
       factor, nor must it discuss each factor and the role that it played in
       sentencing.”).
             We AFFIRM Acevedo Luna’s conviction and sentence.