USA v. Marcos Gamino

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11640
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:05-cr-20235-FAM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARCOS GAMINO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 12, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11640 Date Filed: 02/12/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Marcos Gamino, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and serving a 295-
month sentence stemming from six convictions for attempt and conspiracy to
commit a cocaine-trafficking offense and Hobbs Act robbery, appeals the district
court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction
under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Gamino contends the district
court failed to demonstrate that it considered all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, particularly those that supported a sentence reduction. After
review,1 we affirm.
The district court2 satisfied the two-step test by first determining that
Gamino was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 and second
declining to reduce Gamino’s sentence. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778,
780, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). The district court’s failure to specifically discuss the
§ 3553(a) factors upon which Gamino’s motion relied is not a basis for reversal “as
long as the record demonstrates that the pertinent factors were taken into account
by the district court.” United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir.
1997). The order specifically states that the district court considered Gamino’s
motion, the Government’s response, and the § 3553(a) factors and that the district
court denied the motion due to “the seriousness of the offense and the participation
1 We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to grant or deny a
§ 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008).
2 The district judge who presided over Gamino’s trial and sentencing also heard
Gamino’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.
Case: 15-11640 Date Filed: 02/12/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
of [Gamino].” Notwithstanding Gamino’s desire that the district court weigh the
§ 3553(a) factors differently, the record demonstrates that the district court
considered the pertinent factors. See Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d at 1322–23; cf. United
States v. Langston, 590 F.3d 1226, 1237 (11th Cir. 2009) (“We do not reweigh
relevant factors . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-11640 Date Filed: 02/12/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --