USA v. Lazaro Candelaria

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Lazaro Candelaria. 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.

Case: 15-15713

Date Filed: 12/12/2016

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15713
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20165-DPG-6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAZARO CANDELARIA,
a.k.a. Gordo,
a.k.a. YLO Laz,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 12, 2016)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-15713

Date Filed: 12/12/2016

Page: 2 of 4

Lazaro Candelaria pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with
intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Based
on that conviction and his status as a career offender, the district court sentenced
Candelaria to 160 months imprisonment. He challenges his sentence.
Candelaria first contends that the district court erred by denying his request
for a two-level reduction under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.2(b)
based on his minor role in the offense. “We review for clear error a district court’s
denial of a role reduction.” United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 980 (11th Cir.
2015).
Section 3B1.2(b) of the sentencing guidelines provides for a two-point
offense level reduction if the defendant was a “minor participant” in the criminal
activity. But as this Court has made clear, “minor role adjustments are not
available to defendants sentenced under [U.S.S.G.] § 4B1.1” as a career offender.
United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, the district
court determined that Candelaria was appropriately classified as a career offender
under § 4B1.1, and he does not challenge that conclusion. As a result the district
court did not err in denying Candelaria a minor role adjustment. For the same
reason, Candelaria’s argument that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable
because of the district court’s denial of a minor role adjustment also fails.

2

Case: 15-15713

Date Filed: 12/12/2016

Page: 3 of 4

Candelaria also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of the sentences imposed on his codefendants, whom Candelaria asserts had
larger roles in the conspiracy. We review for abuse of discretion the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007). “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). “The party challenging the sentence bears
the burden of showing that it is unreasonable.” United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d
933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016).
In imposing a particular sentence, a district court must consider, among
other things, the nature of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
defendant, and the applicable guidelines range. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). As
Candelaria argues, a district court must also consider “the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have
been found guilty of similar conduct.” Id. § 3553(a)(6). But as this Court has
recently noted, “there can be no ‘unwarranted’ sentencing disparities among
codefendants who are not similarly situated.” United States v. Azmat, 805 F.3d
1018, 1048 (11th Cir. 2015).

3

Case: 15-15713

Date Filed: 12/12/2016

Page: 4 of 4

Candelaria has not shown that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
His criminal history includes felony convictions for violent robbery and multiple
controlled substance offenses, and those offenses led to his classification as a
career offender. Candelaria’s codefendants did not have criminal histories that led
to career offender classifications, and as a result, they were not “similarly situated”
defendants. See United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181, 1188 (11th Cir. 2011);
United States v. Quinn, 123 F.3d 1415, 1426 (11th Cir. 1997).
In determining Candelaria’s sentence, the district court considered his
significant criminal history, the overall criminal conspiracy, his role in the
conspiracy, his guidelines range, and the other sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Based on those considerations, it sentenced Candelaria to 160 months
imprisonment — a term of imprisonment below his guidelines range of 188 to 235
months. The district court did not make a clear error of judgment in considering
the § 3553(a) factors, and it did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Candelaria.
See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189.
AFFIRMED.

4