USA v. Alexis Fuentes

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 19-12688
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20449-FAM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEXIS FUENTES,

Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 24, 2020)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-12688 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 1 of 3

2

Alexis Fuentes appeals his 84-month sentence on substantive reasonableness
grounds. Fuentes argues that the district court abused its discretion by varying
upward because it placed exclusive weight on the need to protect the public from
his future crimes. We disagree, and we therefore affirm Fuentes’s sentence.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard of review. United States v. Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d
1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2016). “A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails
to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2)
gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear
error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612
F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation omitted). A district court
need not discuss each 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor individually if it acknowledges,
generally, that it considered the “defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors.”
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is “committed to the sound
discretion of the district court.” United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir.
2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although “a district court’s
unjustified reliance [on] any one § 3553(a) factor” may be indicative “of an
unreasonable sentence,” United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir.
2006) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), a district
Case: 19-12688 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 2 of 3

3

court does not abuse its discretion by giving substantial weight to a § 3553(a)
factor if the sentence imposed “was necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing.”
Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d at 1288.
Here, the district court did not, as Fuentes argues, “unjustifiably rel[y] upon
a single § 3553(a) factor to the exclusion of [the] other[s].” The district court
stated that, in coming to its sentencing decision, it considered § 3553(a) in its
entirety. Although the district court did emphasize the need to “protect[] the
public” from Fuentes given his string of previous robberies, it recognized that
protecting the public is only one “part of sentencing.” Moreover, we have held
that a district court may place “great weight” on the need to “protect the public”
from the defendant’s future crimes—particularly where, as here, “shorter sentences
. . . had not been enough to protect the public from [the defendant’s] lawlessness.”
United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1237, 1240–41 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation
omitted). Finally, the sentence imposed by the district court—84 months—was
well below the 240-month statutory maximum, which we have held is indicative of
a reasonable sentence. See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-12688 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 3 of 3