USA v. Ariel Arias, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Ariel Arias, Antonio Comin and Jose Valdes Diaz. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions. (14-13139X, 14-13173X, 14-13330X)

Case: 14-12993

Date Filed: 02/04/2016

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12993
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-10029-JEM-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARIEL ARIAS,
a.k.a. Pichinga
a.k.a. Pajia
a.k.a. Pinguilla
ANTONIO COMIN,
a.k.a. Tony,
DANIEL ROCHELA,
JOSE VALDES DIAZ,
a.k.a. Pepito,
Defendants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 4, 2016)

Case: 14-12993

Date Filed: 02/04/2016

Page: 2 of 3

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and EBEL, ∗ Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this consolidated appeal, appellants Ariel Arias, Antonio Comin, Daniel
Rochela, and Jose Valdes Diaz separately challenge their various convictions and
sentences arising from a 2012 scheme to smuggle aliens into the United States
from Cuba. The appellants raise a variety of arguments, most of which overlap.
After review of the parties’ briefs and the relevant law, and having had the benefit
of oral argument, we hold that the district court committed no reversible error.
Therefore, we affirm.
Arias, Comin, Diaz, and Rochela all assert that their convictions should be
vacated due to insufficient evidence and because the district court erroneously
admitted various pieces of evidence. These arguments fail. First, based on the
evidence presented at trial, “a reasonable jury could have found [each appellant]
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” See United States v. Reeves, 742 F.3d 487, 497
(11th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support the
appellants’ convictions. See id. Second, the appellants’ evidentiary challenges are
unavailing because, even assuming the district court erred in admitting the
evidence at issue, such error was harmless. See United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d
1243, 1250 (11th Cir. 2000).
∗

Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals, sitting by designation.
2

Case: 14-12993

Date Filed: 02/04/2016

Page: 3 of 3

Rochela and Diaz also argue that their conspiracy convictions must be
vacated because the conspiracy-related evidence presented at trial materially varied
from the allegations in their indictments. However, relief for a material variance
requires proof of substantial prejudice, see United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d
1314, 1327 (11th Cir. 1997), which Rochela and Diaz have not demonstrated.
Finally, Rochela and Comin assert that their respective sentences are
unreasonable, but we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
sentencing either appellant. See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188–89
(11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (holding that appellate courts review challenges to the
reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion).
AFFIRMED.

3