United States v. Sergio Miralles, 521 F. App'x 837

Miralles pled guilty to one count of knowing possession of 15+ unauthorized access devices with intent to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3) and (c)(1)(A)(i).
In September 2009, Miralles downloaded 26,418 unique stolen credit card numbers from the internet.
Some accounts associated with the stolen numbers had been closed due to fraud as early as 2007, before Miralles downloaded them.
The PSI set base offense level at 6, and the loss amount of $13,449,377.04 increased the offense level by 20, yielding a total level of 31 and a guidelines range of 108–120 months.
The district court imposed a 30-month sentence, a 78-month downward variance based in part on who caused the loss and whether the numbers were usable for their intended purpose.
Miralles appeals, challenging procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence, which the Eleventh Circuit affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is procedurally reasonable	Miralles argues the court failed to independently calculate the guidelines range.	Miralles contends the court did not properly show independent guideline calculation or factual findings.	No plain error; court satisfied duty and properly considered the PSI.
Whether the loss amount was properly calculated	Miralles contends unusable numbers should not count toward loss under § 2B1.1.	Miralles cannot show error affected his substantial rights or that the result would differ if unusable numbers were excluded.	Miralles failed to show a reasonable probability of a different result; usable/unusable numbers did not change the sentence outcome.
Whether the loss usability issue affected substantial rights	Loss calculation errors could yield a lower sentence.	The district court already factored usability into its downward variance and the sentence would not be below the reduced range even if unusable numbers were excluded.	No reversible error; substantial rights not affected.
Whether the 30-month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Sentence was too lenient given the guidelines range.	Significant downward variance was justified by § 3553(a) factors, including offense nature and defendant's characteristics.	Sentence upheld; no abuse of discretion given the substantial downward variance.

United States v. Johnson, 694 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review standard for procedural challenges)
United States v. Daniels, 685 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2012) (sufficiency of factual findings for enhancements)
United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2005) (courts must consult and consider guidelines at sentencing)
United States v. Flores, 572 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation to guidelines where appropriate)
United States v. Bennet, 472 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 2006) (burden to show substantial rights impact in plain-error review)
United States v. Pena, 684 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2012) (plain-error framework for sentencing challenges)
United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2009) (invitation theory in the context of procedural error)
United States v. Tobin, 676 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2012) (substantial downward variance and reasonableness)
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc standard for substantive reasonableness)