United States v. Marco Canastillo, 688 F. App'x 840

Canastillo pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 2,240 grams of a substance 98.1% pure methamphetamine.
He admitted acting as an assistant courier, delivering drugs from Arizona to an undercover officer in Florida, and expected $1,000 for his role.
The PSR calculated a total offense level of 26 (including a minor-role reduction) and criminal history category I, yielding a Guidelines range of 63–78 months.
At sentencing Canastillo raised no PSR objections but requested a downward variance to 41 months, citing his minor role, nonviolent offense, lack of criminal history, and difficult upbringing in Mexico.
The district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, found the background mitigating but concluded a Guidelines sentence better served deterrence, and imposed 63 months (the low end of the range).
Canastillo appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Canastillo's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the 63-month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Court failed to give proper weight to his history/characteristics, minor role, nonviolent conduct, and low recidivism risk; requested 41-month variance	District court considered §3553(a) factors and properly balanced mitigating factors against deterrence and other sentencing goals	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion: court considered relevant factors, weighed them, and reasonably imposed a Guidelines sentence

Irey v. United States, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (standard of review for substantive reasonableness is abuse of discretion)
Rosales-Bruno v. United States, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (articulates when a district court abuses discretion in weighing §3553(a) factors)