USA v. Reno Deveaux

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10982
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RENO JOEL DEVEAUX,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20527-RNS-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10982 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10982
Before R OSENBAUM , JILL PRYOR , and E DMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Reno Deveaux, Jr., appeals his 24-month sentence, imposed
after he pleaded guilty to 20 counts of encouraging and inducing
aliens to enter the United States: a violation of 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (v)(II). No reversible error has been shown; we
affirm.
Briefly stated, Deveaux’s convictions stem from these facts.
In September 2021, agents with the United States Customs and
Border Protection Air and Marine Operations detected a 23-foot
vessel near the Bahamas traveling toward the United States. When
the vessel crossed into United States waters, agents attempted to
stop the vessel using blue lights, sirens, and spotlights. When the
vessel failed to stop, agents fired warning shots in front of the ves-
sel. The vessel continued moving. Agents observed the vessel’s
pilot -- later identified as Deveaux -- crouched under the console
and steering erratically. Agents ultimately stopped the vessel by
firing disabling shots at the vessel’s engine. Upon boarding the ves-
sel, agents discovered a total of 21 people on board (none of whom
were United States citizens) and a single lifejacket.
Before sentencing, a probation officer prepared a Presen-
tence Investigation Report (“PSI”). The PSI assigned a total offense
level of 21 based on these guideline calculations: (1) a base offense
level of 12, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(a)(3); (2) a 3-level increase because the
USCA11 Case: 22-10982 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

22-10982 Opinion of the Court 3
offense involved 20 aliens, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(A); (3) an increase
to an offense level of 22 because a firearm was discharged, U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.1(b)(5)(A); (4) a 2-level increase for “intentionally or reck-
lessly creat[ing] a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury
to another person,” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6); and (5) a total 3-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), (b).
Based on a total offense level of 21 and Deveaux’s criminal history
category of I, the PSI calculated an advisory guidelines range of be-
tween 37 and 46 months’ imprisonment.
Deveaux filed objections to the PSI. First, Deveaux objected
to the seven-point enhancement for discharging a firearm: De-
veaux argued the enhancement should not apply when a firearm is
discharged by law enforcement and not by the defendant. Deveaux
also argued that the district court should apply a three-level reduc-
tion -- under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(1) -- because he says “the offense
was committed other than for profit.” Deveaux raised no objec-
tions to the enhancements applied for an offense involving 20 al-
iens and for creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily
injury, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(A) and (b)(6).
The district court overruled Deveaux’s objections. The dis-
trict court adopted the PSI’s advisory guideline range of 37 to 46
months. The district court imposed a below-guidelines sentence of
24-months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. At
sentencing, the district court also said explicitly that -- even if the
district court had sustained Deveaux’s objections to the two
USCA11 Case: 22-10982 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-10982
challenged guideline provisions -- the court would have imposed
the same 24-month sentence.
“We review the district court’s interpretation of the Sen-
tencing Guidelines
de novo and accept its factual findings unless
clearly erroneous.”
United States v. Barner, 572 F.3d 1239, 1247
(11th Cir. 2009).
Where -- as in this case -- the district court says that it would
have imposed the same sentence irrespective of the disputed guide-
line calculation, we need not resolve the guideline issue if the sen-
tence imposed is substantively reasonable.
See United States v.
Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2006). In determining the
reasonableness of the sentence, “we must assume that there was
guidelines error -- that the guidelines issue should have been de-
cided in the way the defendant argued and the advisory range re-
duced accordingly -- and then ask whether the final sentence result-
ing from consideration of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors would
still be reasonable.”
Id.
We evaluate the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). In
reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we con-
sider the totality of the circumstances and whether the sentence
achieves the purposes of sentencing stated in section 3553(a).
See
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
USCA11 Case: 22-10982 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

22-10982 Opinion of the Court 5
The purposes of sentencing include promoting respect for
the law, providing just punishment, deterring criminal conduct,
and protecting the public from further crimes. 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2). A sentencing court should also consider the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the Guidelines range,
policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, and the need to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
(3)-(7). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of es-
tablishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both the
record and the section 3553(a) factors.
See United States v. Talley,
431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
If the district court had decided the two disputed guideline
issues in Deveaux’s favor, Deveaux’s advisory guidelines range
would have been 18 to 24 months.* We must now determine
whether the sentence imposed was reasonable, “assuming exactly
the same conduct and other factors in the case,” but with an
* This assumed guidelines range is based on a revised total offense level of 15
and a criminal history category of I.
See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, pt. A. We calculate
the revised total offense level using the following guideline provisions: (1) a
base-offense level of 12, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(a)(3); (2) a 3-level reduction for an
offense “committed other than for profit,” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(1); (3) a 3-level
increase for an offense involving 20 aliens, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(A); (4) an
increase to an offense level of 18 because “the offense involved intentionally
or recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to an-
other person,” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6); and (5) a 3-point reduction for ac-
ceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), (b).
USCA11 Case: 22-10982 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-10982
assumed guidelines range of 18 to 24 months, instead of 37 to 46
months.
See Keene, 470 F.3d at 1350.
Given the totality of the circumstances and the section
3553(a) factors, Deveaux’s 24-month sentence is substantively rea-
sonable. Deveaux was involved in a scheme to transport unlaw-
fully 20 non-citizens into the United States aboard an “overloaded”
vessel that held only one life jacket. When intercepted by law en-
forcement, Deveaux attempted to flee, engaged in erratic driving,
and prompted law enforcement to fire at the vessel’s engine. At
the sentencing hearing, the district court observed that Deveaux’s
offense conduct -- including his refusal to stop for law enforcement
-- “could have easily had somebody killed.”
On this record, the district court could conclude reasonably
that a sentence of 24 months was necessary to reflect the serious-
ness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide
just punishment. That the sentence is both within the assumed
guidelines range (18-24 months) and well below the maximum stat-
utory penalty (100 years) also supports a finding of reasonableness.
See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324; 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii) (provid-
ing a maximum term of imprisonment of five years per alien).
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-10982 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --