United States v. Jose Vega-Cervantes
666 F. App'x 841
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Jose Vega‑Cervantes convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine; advisory Guidelines range calculated at 63–78 months; statutory maximum life.
- District court varied upward and imposed a 92‑month sentence (14 months above the Guidelines high end).
- Defense requested 54 months; Government recommended a sentence near the bottom of the Guidelines.
- At allocution, Cervantes (through an interpreter) apologized, using the word translated as “mistake”; the court viewed this as showing insufficient remorse.
- The district court emphasized the harms of methamphetamine, the need for general deterrence, and consistency with prior sentences for similar conduct in explaining the upward variance.
- Cervantes appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable for three reasons: the court over‑relied on the word “mistake,” misstated what the Guidelines account for (deterrence and drug quantity), and ignored recent minor‑role reduction guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable | Cervantes: sentence unreasonable because court relied on a single word (“mistake”) mistranslated by interpreter to find lack of remorse | Government: court reasonably relied on the official translation and broader record showing lack of remorse | Affirmed — court properly relied on the translation and broader allocution/context to assess remorse |
| Whether court wrongly relied on deterrence/quantity as bases for upward variance | Cervantes: upward variance premised on mistaken view that Guidelines do not account for deterrence and drug quantity | Government: district court may consider §3553(a) factors and impose an above‑Guidelines sentence when Guidelines are too lenient given harm and quantity | Affirmed — advisory Guidelines allow variance; court’s emphasis on deterrence and quantity was reasonable |
| Whether court ignored minor‑role reduction, imposing sentence to avoid disparities | Cervantes: court ignored two‑level minor role reduction and imposed sentence to avoid disparities | Government: record shows court acknowledged the minor‑role reduction; if ignored, a much higher sentence would have been imposed | Affirmed — court accounted for minor role; upward variance was proportionate and not for avoiding unwarranted disparities |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2010) (burden on appellant to show sentence unreasonable under §3553(a))
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (abuse‑of‑discretion framework for sentencing review)
- United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (factors constituting abuse of discretion at sentencing)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (defining when a sentence lies outside reasonable range)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (making Guidelines advisory)
- United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2006) (upholding sentence as reasonable when well below statutory maximum)
- United States v. Osorio‑Moreno, 814 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2016) (affirming an above‑Guidelines sentence where sentence remained within statutory limits)