USA v. Juan Carlos Holguin

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Juan Carlos Portillo Holguin. 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: 17-11816

Date Filed: 04/11/2018

Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11816
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60292-WPD-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN CARLOS PORTILLO HOLGUIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 11, 2018)
Before MARTIN, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-11816

Date Filed: 04/11/2018

Page: 2 of 6

Defendant Juan Carlos Holguin appeals his 180-month sentence, imposed
following his guilty plea to one count of transporting child pornography and one
count of possessing child pornography. On appeal, Defendant challenges the
substantive reasonableness of his sentence. After careful review, we affirm.
I.

BACKGROUND
In April 2016, law enforcement officers identified a user on a file-sharing

network whose shared folder contained suspected images of child pornography.
After determining the IP address of the user, law enforcement officers used an
undercover computer to download two videos from the computer assigned to that
IP address. Law enforcement officers determined that the videos contained child
pornography and executed a search warrant at the address. While executing the
warrant, officers learned that Defendant had recently rented a room at the residence
and had since departed to Colombia. In September 2016, Defendant was stopped
at the Fort Lauderdale Airport upon arriving in the United States from Colombia.
A subsequent search of Defendant’s laptop revealed numerous files containing
child pornography.
A federal grand jury charged Defendant with (1) transporting by means and
facility of interstate commerce a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually
explicit activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(1) and (b)(1) (Count 1), and
(2) possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and
2

Case: 17-11816

Date Filed: 04/11/2018

Page: 3 of 6

(b)(2) (Count 2). Defendant later pled guilty to both counts pursuant to a written
plea agreement.
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) assigned Defendant a base
offense level of 22 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(a)(2). Defendant received several
enhancements, resulting in an adjusted offense level of 42. With a three-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Defendant’s total offense level was 39.
Based on a total offense level of 39 and a criminal history category of I, his
guideline range was 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. Defendant did not raise
any objections to the PSR.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court confirmed that the guideline
range was 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. The Government recommended that
Defendant receive at least a bottom-of-the-guideline sentence, given the number of
images of child pornography, which included 300 videos, and Defendant’s
admission that he engaged in sexual conduct with minors in two of the videos. The
district court clarified that the factual proffer stated that Defendant admitted to
engaging in sexual conduct with two females who appeared to be under the age of
16. The court then viewed the videos and determined that it was not clear that the
females were minors.
Based on the court’s determination, Defendant objected to the two-level
enhancement he received under § 2G2.2(b)(2) for material involving a minor who
3

Case: 17-11816

Date Filed: 04/11/2018

Page: 4 of 6

had not attained the age of 12, and the five-level enhancement under
§ 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) for engaging in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse of
a minor. The district court sustained Defendant’s objection to the five-level
enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F), resulting in an amended guideline range of
151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. After considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, the district court sentenced Defendant to 180 months’ imprisonment. This
appeal followed.
II.

DISCUSSION
Using a two-step process, we review the reasonableness of a district court’s

sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th
Cir. 2014). First, we determine whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable. Id.
After determining that a sentence is procedurally sound, we then examine whether
the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances
and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 1 Id. The party challenging the sentence bears
the burden of showing that it is unreasonable. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d
1179, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008).

1

The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history
and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for
deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed
education or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the
Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission;
(9) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution
to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
4

Case: 17-11816

Date Filed: 04/11/2018

Page: 5 of 6

Defendant has not met his burden of showing that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable. For starters, his 180-month sentence was within the
guideline range of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. “Although we do not
automatically presume a sentence within the guidelines range is reasonable, we
ordinarily expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable.” United
States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted) (alteration
accepted). Defendant’s sentence is also well below the statutory maximum of 20
years’ imprisonment. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th
Cir. 2008) (indicating that a sentence below the statutory maximum sentence is an
indicator of reasonableness).
Moreover, Defendant’s sentence was supported by the § 3553(a) factors. As
noted by the district court, Defendant’s 180-month sentence was necessary for
deterrence and to promote respect for the law given the “sheer magnitude of the
child pornography in this case.” Indeed, as the Government explained during the
sentencing hearing, Defendant transported 300 videos containing child
pornography into the United States. In short, we cannot say that we are “left with
the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies
outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United
States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation omitted).
5

Case: 17-11816

Date Filed: 04/11/2018

Page: 6 of 6

Accordingly, Defendant’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

6