USA v. Luis Libed

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10760
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00495-JSM-MAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS LIBED,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 23, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LAGOA and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-10760 Date Filed: 03/23/2021 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Louis Libed appeals his sentence of 18 months of imprisonment imposed
following the revocation of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583. Libed argues
that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
The district court committed no procedural error. It correctly calculated that
Libed had an advisory guidelines range of 18 to 24 months of imprisonment, a
maximum sentence of 3 years of imprisonment, and could serve up to 60 months
on supervised release based on his grade A violation and his criminal history of III.
The district court stated that Libed’s sentence was based on his and his attorney’s
arguments, the Sentencing Guidelines, and the statutory sentencing factors, 18
U.S.C. § 3553. That statement provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence
selected. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356–57, 359 (2007); United
States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1195 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Among other
sentencing factors, the district court had to consider “any pertinent policy
statement.” Id. § 3553(a)(5); United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 799 (11th Cir.
2006). The policy statements in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines
recommend that “the sanction imposed upon revocation . . . be served
consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for any criminal conduct
that is the basis of the revocation.” United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual
Ch. 7, Pt. B intro. cmt.
USCA11 Case: 20-10760 Date Filed: 03/23/2021 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Libed’s sentence is also substantively reasonable. Less than a year after he
served 120 months in prison for possessing five grams or more of
methamphetamine, Libed was charged with domestic violence, false imprisonment,
strangulation, and tampering with a witness, and he sold 104.5 grams of cocaine to
a confidential informant in a series of four transactions. And Libed had committed
the methamphetamine offense while on supervised release after completing a 236-
month term in prison for distributing cocaine. The district court reasonably decided
to run Libed’s sentence to a term at the low end of his advisory guideline range
consecutive to the sentence for his underlying offense to address the seriousness of
his violation and his recidivism, to deter him from similar future conduct, and to
protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Before imposing sentence, the district
court considered Libed’s arguments to mitigate his sentence based on his difficult
childhood, lack of education and job skills, drug addiction, and age. Libed’s
sentence is substantially less than his maximum statutory penalty of 3 years of
imprisonment. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir.
2008). The district court did not abuse its discretion.
We AFFIRM Libed’s sentence.
USCA11 Case: 20-10760 Date Filed: 03/23/2021 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --