United States v. Alredo Herrera-Villarreal
665 F. App'x 762
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Herrera-Villarreal pled guilty to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute ≥5 kg of cocaine aboard a vessel; district court sentenced him to 135 months at the bottom of the Guidelines range.
- Sentencing was based on 1,227 kg of cocaine recovered from the vessel on which he served as a crewmember.
- He sought a mitigating-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 (minor/minimal participant), asserting he had a limited role as a mechanic/crewmember.
- The district court denied the § 3B1.2 reduction and stated it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when imposing sentence.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for clear error (role finding) and plain error (procedural reasonableness not objected to at sentencing) and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Herrera‑Villarreal was entitled to a mitigating‑role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 | He was less culpable than the average participant; the Nov. 2015 amendment to note 3(c) favors consideration of his limited role | His conduct equaled the relevant conduct (1,227 kg on his vessel) and he failed to show he was less culpable than other crewmembers | Denied — district court did not clearly err; he failed to prove by a preponderance that he was less culpable |
| Whether the sentence was procedurally unreasonable for failing to consider § 3553(a) factors or inadequately explain the sentence | Argued district court did not properly consider or explain § 3553(a) factors | District court expressly stated it considered § 3553(a) and discussed defendant’s background and seriousness of the offense | Denied — no procedural error; explanation and § 3553(a) consideration were sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (framework for measuring defendant’s role against relevant conduct and other participants)
- United States v. Alvarez-Coria, 447 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2006) (defendant bears burden by preponderance to prove minor role)
- United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (appellate review of district court’s factual role findings for clear error)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for review of sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court need not explicitly address each § 3553(a) factor on the record)
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (plain‑error review applies when no contemporaneous procedural objection is made at sentencing)