United States v. Juan Gutierrez
673 F. App'x 919
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Juan Gutierrez Arencebia, a Cuban national, had multiple prior convictions for alien smuggling and related federal immigration offenses and was serving supervised release in three cases.
- In October 2013 he left the judicial district without permission, was arrested after a Coast Guard interdicted his vessel off the Florida Keys, and was alleged to have been engaged in alien smuggling and attempted illegal reentry.
- At the initial supervised-release revocation hearing the district court relied on evidence of alien-smuggling conduct not proven to the required evidentiary standard; this Court vacated the 72-month revocation sentence and remanded for resentencing to allow the defendant to contest sentencing evidence.
- At resentencing the Government presented live testimony (Coast Guard pilot and DHS agent) and the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Arencebia engaged in alien smuggling in October 2013.
- The district court revoked supervised release in each of the three cases and imposed consecutive 24-month terms (statutory maxima), totaling 72 months; Arencebia appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the court properly considered reliable evidence of alien smuggling and did not abuse its discretion in imposing upward variances to the statutory maximums.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of considering alien-smuggling conduct at revocation | Government: court may consider background conduct at sentencing if proved by a preponderance | Arencebia: district court relied on alien-smuggling conduct rather than the admitted violation (leaving district) and previously used unreliable evidence | Court: No procedural error — resentencing allowed cross-examination and court found alien-smuggling conduct proved by preponderance; defendant abandoned challenge to sufficiency on appeal |
| Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable (upward variance to statutory max) | Government: history of repeated smuggling and danger to others justified upward variance and deterrence | Arencebia: 24-month terms far exceed advisory ranges and court overrelied on alien-smuggling conduct | Court: Variances were reasonable given repeated prior smuggling, danger to victims, and deterrence needs; no abuse of discretion |
| Applicability of guideline provision for multiple counts (§5G1.2) to revocation sentences | Government: revocation sentences governed by Chapter 7 policy statements | Arencebia: consecutive sentences unreasonable under §5G1.2 logic | Court: §5G1.2 does not govern revocation sentences; Chapter 7 controls, so consecutive terms permissible |
| Burden and standard for sentencing facts | Government: sentencing facts need only be proved by preponderance; broad materials admissible if reliable | Arencebia: prior appeal flagged unreliable evidence; any reliance now improper | Court: Standard is preponderance (Watts); district court met it at resentencing with live testimony and opportunity to contest |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. United States, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (sentencing facts may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness review and standards for supporting an outside-guidelines variance)
- United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014) (two-step abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (burden on party challenging sentence to show unreasonableness)
- United States v. Quinones, 136 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 1998) (Chapter 7, not §5G1.2, governs revocation sentencing)