USA v. Mauricio Gomez, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Mauricio Gomez and German Rodriguez. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 11-13582

Date Filed: 03/01/2013

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 11-13582
_____________
D. C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20699-DLG-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAURICIO GOMEZ,
GERMAN RODRIGUEZ,
Defendants-Appellants.
______________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
______________
(March 1, 2013)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, BLACK and ALARCÓN, * Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting
by designation.

Case: 11-13582

Date Filed: 03/01/2013

Page: 2 of 4

Appellants Mauricio Gomez (“Gomez”) and German Rodriguez
(“Rodriguez”) (collectively “Defendants”) appeal their convictions and sentences
imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Specifically, Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their
convictions and the district court’s denial of their motion for judgment of acquittal
or a new trial on the basis of an alleged Brady 1 violation. Defendants also appeal
their sentences, specifically challenging the district court’s calculation of loss,
denial of a “minor role” reduction, and application of a “sophisticated means”
enhancement. Rodriguez also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence.
The issues presented on appeal are as follows:
A. Evidence and guilt/innocence
(1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that
Defendants knowingly participated in a wire fraud scheme with the intent to
defraud.
(2) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Gomez’s conviction on
Count 13 for knowingly aiding and abetting Rodriguez in wire fraud.

1

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963).
2

Case: 11-13582

Date Filed: 03/01/2013

Page: 3 of 4

(3) Whether the Government violated Brady by suppressing material
exculpatory evidence, and if so, whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying a new trial.
B. Sentencing
(4) Whether the district court clearly erred in calculating loss attributable to
Defendants.
(5) Whether the district court clearly erred in declining to apply a “minor
role” reduction for Defendants.
(6) Whether the district court clearly erred in applying a “sophisticated
means” enhancement.
(7) Whether Rodriguez’s 37-month sentence is substantively reasonable.
We review de novo whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a
conviction. United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2003). We
view the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, drawing all reasonable
inferences and resolving all questions of credibility in favor of the government. Id.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for new trial based
on an alleged Brady violation. United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1350 (11th
Cir. 2006). But see United States v. Jones, 601 F.3d 1247, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010)
(reviewing alleged Brady violation de novo).
3

Case: 11-13582

Date Filed: 03/01/2013

Page: 4 of 4

We review for clear error the district court’s calculation of loss, United
States v. Naranjo, 634 F.3d 1198, 1206 (11th Cir. 2011), the district court’s denial
of a “minor role” reduction, United States v. Bernal-Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303, 1320
(11th Cir. 2010), and the district court’s finding that a defendant used
“sophisticated means,” United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1329–30 (11th
Cir. 2007).
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). We
first ensure that that the district court committed no procedural error in imposing
the sentence. Id. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If the sentencing was procedurally
sound, then we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence and apply
the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597.
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit
of oral argument, we conclude that there is no merit to any of the arguments
Defendants make in this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendants’
convictions and sentences.
AFFIRMED.

4