USA v. Raul Sosa

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10631
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20170-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAUL SOSA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 21, 2016)
Before MARCUS, FAY, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 16-10631 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Raul Sosa (“Sosa”) appeals his total 78-month sentence imposed after the jury
found him guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 371, making and subscribing a false 2007 individual tax return in violation of 26
U.S.C. § 7206(1), aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false 2008 corporate
tax return in violation of § 7206(2), and making and subscribing a false 2008
individual tax return in violation of § 7206(1).
Briefly stated, the appeal presents two issues:
(1) Whether the district court erred by applying a guidelines
enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1
(2) Whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence
when it heavily weighed criminal history to vary upward from
the guidelines range
The district court properly gave a two-level enhancement for obstruction of
justice without “double-counting” Sosa’s criminal conduct: the indictment did not
charge Sosa for filing false amended corporate returns, after he was told he was the
subject of a criminal investigation.
The district court imposed a procedurally reasonable sentence because it
correctly calculated the adjusted base offense level for Sosa, considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained its sentence. The district court
Case: 16-10631 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
also imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. The court considered the
guidelines range, weighed the § 3553(a) factors in the light of the seriousness of the
crime, considered Sosa’s particular conduct and lively criminal history, noted his
lack of remorse, and considered the need to promote respect for the law and the need
to deter Sosa and others. Given these considerations, the sentencing court did not
abuse its discretion in determining it was appropriate to vary upward from the
guidelines range. For background, see United States v. Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d
1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir.
2010); United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 16-10631 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --