United States v. Cesar M. Valencia
686 F. App'x 829
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cesar M. Valencia, previously convicted in 2004 for a 2003 cocaine-smuggling conspiracy involving ~5,500 lbs of cocaine, completed prison and began a 60-month supervised release in 2012 after deportation to Colombia.
- In July 2015, Valencia was a crewmember on a semi-submersible carrying ~6,900 kg of cocaine; he pled guilty to a 2015 vessel-based cocaine conspiracy offense while admitting supervised-release violations.
- District court consolidated the 2003 supervised-release revocation with sentencing for the 2015 offense and held a joint hearing.
- Court imposed the mandatory-minimum 120-month sentence for the 2015 offense (below the advisory range) and a 24-month sentence for the supervised-release violation (within the guideline range), to run consecutively, yielding a total 144 months.
- Valencia appealed only the district court’s decision to run the 24-month revocation sentence consecutively rather than concurrently, arguing the total sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing the 24-month supervised-release revocation sentence consecutively to the 120-month mandatory sentence was substantively unreasonable | Valencia: consecutive 24-month run makes total sentence substantively unreasonable | Government/District Court: consecutive sentence permissible and justified by §3553(a) factors and Guidelines policy statements | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; consecutive term reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (reasonableness review of sentences)
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (review of revocation sentences)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework)
- United States v. Covington, 565 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2009) (review of consecutive sentence decisions)
- United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2005) (district court not required to explicitly discuss every mitigation factor)
- United States v. Langston, 590 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2009) (appellate court will not reweigh §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2014) (appellant abandons procedural reasonableness claim if not raised)