USA v. Rolando Coca Alvarez

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 19, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-16009
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00512-SCB-AEP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROLANDO COCA ALVAREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 19, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 4 --

On the night of Friday, March 6, 2010, Rolando Coca Alvarez and another
individual cut a hole in the roof of the iGov Technologies warehouse in Tampa,
Florida, entered the warehouse, disarmed the alarm system, and, joined by several
accomplices, and removed from the warehouse approximately 3,000 computers,
scanners, and other pieces of electronic equipment, all belonging to the United
States Military. The next day, March 7, two tractor trailers loaded with the
equipment arrived at an abandoned warehouse in Miami. On April 1, 2010, law
enforcement recovered 1,911 pieces of the stolen equipment from the warehouse.
On August 23, 2011, Alvarez pled guilty to theft of government property, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. At sentencing, the District Court adopted, without
objection, the Guidelines sentence range recommended by the presentence
investigation report—46 to 57 months’ imprisonment—and, rejecting Alvarez’s
request for a sentence at the low end of that range, sentenced Alvarez to prison for
57 months. He now appeals his sentence, arguing that it is procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. It is procedurally unreasonable, he contends, because
the District Court did not adequately explain its decision and, moreover, credited
a detective’s unsworn testimony over his allocution, which he gave in broken
English. It is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to
fulfill the purposes of the sentence.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

Alvarez did not present his procedural objections to the District Court;
hence, we consider the objections only for plain error. United States v. Jones, 899
F.2d 1097, 1102-03 (11th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds sub. nom.
United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 (11th Cir. 1993) (en banc). After
examining the transcript of the sentencing hearing, we find no error, much less
plain error, and therefore reject the argument that Alvarez’s sentence is
procedurally unreasonable. We turn, then, to the question of whether the sentence
at the high end of the Guidelines sentence range is substantively unreasonable.
A sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply
with the purposes” of a sentence “set forth” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), Factors to be considered in imposing a sentence. These purposes
include the need “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for
the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense”; “to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct”, and “to protect the public from further crimes of
the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A),(B), (C). Given the seriousness of
offense in this case, including the extensive planning and preparation needed to
carry it out and the boldness of its execution, the need of the sentence to provide
just punishment and to deter criminal activity, especially activity of the sort
Alvarez and his accomplices engaged in here, we would be hard put to hold that a
3

-- 3 of 4 --

prison term of 57 months is longer term than necessary to satisfy § 3553(a)(2)’s
sentencing purposes. In short, the sentence is substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --