USA v. Marco Correa

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10706
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20725-JIC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARCO CORREA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 14-10861
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20725-JIC-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Case: 14-10706 Date Filed: 11/21/2014 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
versus
GERSON GOMES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 21, 2014)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In their consolidated appeals, Marco Correa and Gerson Gomes challenge
their sentences of 40 months of imprisonment, which were imposed after they
pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud with device-making equipment, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1029(a)(4), and aggravated identity theft, id. § 1028A(a)(1). Correa and Gomes
argue that their sentences are unreasonable. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. Correa and Gomes, citizens of
Brazil, entered the United States on the same day. Within one month, the two men
established a residence in Miami, Florida; twice installed skimming devices and a
camera on an automatic teller machine used by 87 debit cardholders; and used the
account information stolen from some of those cardholders to rent videotapes and
withdraw $500 from a customer of JP Morgan Chase Bank. The district court
Case: 14-10706 Date Filed: 11/21/2014 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
reasonably determined that the statutory purposes of sentencing, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553, were best served by imposing a sentence at the high end of Correa’s and
Gomes’s advisory guideline range of 10 to 16 months of imprisonment for their
roles in the conspiracy that would run consecutive to a mandatory term of 24
months of imprisonment for stealing personal identification information, see id.
§ 1028A(a)(1), (b)(2).
Correa and Gomes argue that the district court failed to consider any
mitigating factors other than their acceptance of responsibility, but the district
court found their arguments in mitigation unpersuasive. The district court rejected
Correa’s arguments that he had been gainfully employed in Brazil and had been
influenced by Gomes and Gomes’s argument that he had not transferred the
identity information to a third party.
Correa and Gomes also argue that the district court based the sentence
exclusively on its finding that they entered the United States intending to steal
identity information, but the district court took into account the “egregious” nature
of the crimes; Correa’s and Gomes’s admissions that the total intended loss was
$43,040.13; and the agreement of the government to dismiss five additional counts
of identity theft. And Correa invited any error by admitting during his sentencing
hearing that a strong inference could be drawn that he and Gomes entered the
country to steal other persons’ identities. See United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d
Case: 14-10706 Date Filed: 11/21/2014 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009). Correa’s and Gomes’s sentences to a term within the
advisory guideline range are reasonable.
We AFFIRM Correa’s and Gomes’s sentences.
Case: 14-10706 Date Filed: 11/21/2014 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --