USA v. Michael Raian Rocca

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 28, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-12141
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00531-SCB-AEP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL RAIAN ROCCA,
llllllllllllllllllll lDefendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 28, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Raian Rocca appeals his 90-month sentence, which the district
court imposed after Rocca pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to

-- 1 of 3 --

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), possession of a
firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 924(c), and
possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Rocca
argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to
consider both his substantial assistance to authorities and his extraordinary family
circumstances. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review a final sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness.
United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005).
Reasonableness review is akin to the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, Gall
v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007), and we will reverse only if the district
court’s error constitutes a clear error of judgment. United States v. Frazier, 387
F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The party who challenges the
sentence must establish that the sentence is unreasonable in light of both the
record and the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Talley,
431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
Rocca first argues that the district court erred by failing to consider the
substantial assistance he provided to federal authorities after he was apprehended.
Although the court did not engage in an extensive discussion of Rocca’s
assistance, we conclude that the court gave adequate consideration to whether that
2

-- 2 of 3 --

assistance warranted a lesser sentence. Furthermore, the district court explained
that it had considered the advisory guidelines and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553. Under the circumstances of this case, this explanation was sufficient. See
United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005).
We also reject Rocca’s contention that the district court failed to consider
his family circumstances when imposing his sentence. Before imposing his
sentence, the district court listened to testimony from Rocca’s defense counsel and
his fiancée. Both asked the court to impose a lenient sentence because Rocca was
the primary income-earner for his family. The district court listened to those
arguments, but concluded that a within guidelines sentence was nonetheless
warranted. There was no error in this conclusion. As a result, under these
circumstances Rocca’s sentence was reasonable.
For these reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --