United States v. Denis Miguel Pineda
697 F. App'x 634
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Denis Pineda appealed the sentence for conspiracy and multiple counts of distribution and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and heroin under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846.
- He argued the district court’s sentence was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Pineda had a criminal history including a current parole violation for a prior methamphetamine conviction.
- The current offenses involved providing, selling, and supplying large quantities of high-purity methamphetamine on multiple occasions.
- The district court considered deterrence, punishment, protection of the public, Pineda’s history, and the Guidelines range, and declined to vary downward despite hearing Pineda’s policy argument about methamphetamine sentencing.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pineda's sentence was substantively unreasonable | Pineda argued the sentence was excessive and the court should have given greater weight to policy arguments limiting punishment for methamphetamine offenses | Government argued the sentence was reasonable based on offense seriousness, Pineda’s criminal history, deterrence, public protection, and the Guideline range | Affirmed. Court held sentence not substantively unreasonable: district court permissibly weighed deterrence, punishment, offense nature, defendant history, and Guideline range and did not rely on impermissible factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (discusses abuse-of-discretion review of sentences and § 3553(a) analysis)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir.) (explains when a sentence may be substantively unreasonable)
- United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739 (11th Cir.) (weight given to § 3553(a) factors is committed to district court discretion)
- United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855 (11th Cir.) (district court need not address every mitigating factor explicitly)
- United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744 (11th Cir.) (comparing sentence to statutory maximum is one reasonableness indicator)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (district courts may vary from Guidelines based on policy disagreement)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. en banc) (recognizes Kimbrough’s allowance for policy-based variances)