USA v. Manuel Heriberto Gudimo Saltizabal

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13496
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00037-SDM-MAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUEL HERIBERTO GUDIMO SALTIZABAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 12, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-13496 Date Filed: 08/12/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Manuel Saltizabal appeals his 168-month sentence, imposed at the bottom of
the guidelines range, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine while on board a vessel, in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 70506(b),
and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine while on board
a vessel, in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a). Saltizabal argues that his sentence
was substantively unreasonable because it was higher than necessary to meet the
goals of sentencing and created a sentencing disparity between Saltizabal and his
codefendant. After review,1 we affirm.
The sentence imposed by the district court was not substantively
unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597
(2007) (explaining that we examine whether a sentence is substantively reasonable
in light of the totality of the circumstances). The sentence was not higher than
necessary to meet the goals of sentencing because the district court appropriately
weighed the factors listed in § 3553(a), including the need to reflect the seriousness
of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the
offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the defendant’s future
criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Saltizabal has not demonstrated
why those factors should be reweighed. See United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789
F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the decision about how much
1 We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007).
Case: 15-13496 Date Filed: 08/12/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
weight to assign a particular factor is committed to the discretion of the district
court); United States v. Langston, 590 F.3d 1226, 1237 (11th Cir. 2009)
(explaining that, absent clear error, this Court will not reweigh the § 3553(a)
factors). Nor was the sentence substantively unreasonable because it created a
sentencing disparity between Saltizabal and his codefendant. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(6) (requiring the district court to consider the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities). The district court explained at sentencing that Saltizabal’s
sentence was similar to other historical defendants who were involved in the same
conduct. Additionally, Saltizabal, who captained the boat containing the cocaine,
was not similarly situated to his codefendant. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(3)(C). We
therefore affirm Saltizabal’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-13496 Date Filed: 08/12/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --