United States v. Jorge Otano
679 F. App'x 776
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jorge Otano and his wife operated St. Jude’s pharmacy in Cape Coral, FL, which from 2009–2012 filled fraudulent oxycodone prescriptions and sold large quantities at high prices.
- DEA cooperating sources reported multi-prescription fills and purchases up to $8,000–$9,000; Otano coached customers on filling prescriptions and raised prices to about $12 per pill.
- The Otanos earned over $1 million, structured bank deposits to evade currency-reporting requirements, and used consolidated funds for personal purchases (real estate, cars).
- After a search in November 2012, Otano admitted awareness of wrongdoing but said he continued because he was “making money.”
- Otano pleaded guilty to ten counts (drug conspiracy, structuring, money laundering, etc.); PSR set an advisory guideline range of 292–365 months (total offense level 40, CHC I).
- The district court imposed a 144-month term (148-month downward variance from the guideline low end); Otano appealed as substantively unreasonable, citing disparity and § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Otano’s Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 144-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Sentence is greater than necessary; avoid unwarranted disparity; comparable defendant received 84 months; Otano’s age, lack of record, family hardship justify 84 months | Court considered § 3553(a) factors and facts showing serious, continued misconduct and structuring; variance already substantial (148 months) justified | Affirmed — 144 months is reasonable; court permissibly weighed § 3553(a) factors and granted a large downward variance |
| Whether sentencing disparity with another defendant required identical sentence | Otano: similar case merits same 84-month term to avoid unwarranted disparities | Court: different guideline ranges and case specifics; both defendants received comparable variances; courts may treat cases individually | Held — No unwarranted disparity; identical sentence not required; district court reasonably considered differences |
| Whether district court properly considered § 3553(a) factors | Otano: court should have given more weight to his mitigation (age, no priors, caregiving burden, collateral consequences) | Court: considered all § 3553(a) factors, found limited acceptance of responsibility, danger to child, evasive conduct; explained reasons for rejecting additional mitigation | Held — No procedural error; sentencing court acted within discretion in weighing factors |
| Whether appellate court should reweigh sentence | Otano: appellate court should find sentence excessive based on record | Government: appellate court must defer to district court unless sentence is truly unreasonable | Held — Appellate court will not reweigh; only overturn if sentence is an abuse of discretion; defendant failed to show such abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing discretionary sentences; procedural and substantive reasonableness)
- Irey v. United States, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard and when appellate court may overturn sentence)
- Rosales-Bruno v. United States, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (deference to district court’s § 3553(a) weighting)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (sentencing courts must consider each defendant and case individually)
- United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting reasonableness expectation for guideline-range sentences)