[DO NOT PUBLISH]
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
` FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
` ________________________
`
` No. 10-11155
`Non-Argument Calendar
` ________________________
`
` FILED
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
` DECEMBER 7, 2010
`JOHN LEY
`CLERK
`
` D.C. Docket No. 2:97-cr-14003-KMM-2
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`FIDENCIO GONZALES,
`a.k.a. Chita,
`
`lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
`
`versus
`
`lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
`
`________________________
`
` Appeal from the United States District Court
` for the Southern District of Florida
` ________________________
`
`(December 7, 2010)
`
`Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`Fidencio Gonzales appeals the revocation of his supervised release and his
`
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
` FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
` ________________________
`
` No. 10-11155
`Non-Argument Calendar
` ________________________
`
` FILED
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
` DECEMBER 7, 2010
`JOHN LEY
`CLERK
`
` D.C. Docket No. 2:97-cr-14003-KMM-2
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`FIDENCIO GONZALES,
`a.k.a. Chita,
`
`lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
`
`versus
`
`lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
`
`________________________
`
` Appeal from the United States District Court
` for the Southern District of Florida
` ________________________
`
`(December 7, 2010)
`
`Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`Fidencio Gonzales appeals the revocation of his supervised release and his
`
`
`
`60-month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. After a
`
`thorough review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we affirm.
`
`I.
`
`Gonzales first challenges the district court’s revocation of his supervised
`
`release. “We generally review a district court's revocation of supervised release
`
`for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248,
`
`1252 (11th Cir. 2008). Supervised release may be revoked if the district court
`
`finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a condition
`
`of the supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Gonzales argues that the
`
`district court erred in finding that he intended to distribute the eight grams of
`
`cocaine in his possession. Intent to distribute may be inferred from circumstantial
`
`evidence. See United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389, 1392 (11th Cir. 1989) (per
`
`curiam) (“Intent to distribute can be proven circumstantially from, among other
`
`things, the quantity of cocaine and the existence of implements such as scales
`
`commonly used in connection with the distribution of cocaine.”). The record
`
`shows that the cocaine in Gonzales’s possession was packaged in fifteen plastic
`
`baggies. The two experienced arresting officers testified that this was an
`
`indication that the cocaine was intended for sale or distribution. This evidence
`
`was sufficient to support the district court’s finding that Gonzales intended to
`
`2
`
`
`
`distribute the cocaine. We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse
`
`its discretion in revoking Gonzales’s supervised release.
`
`II.
`
`Gonzales next argues that his 60-month sentence is substantively
`
`unreasonable. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse
`1
`
`of discretion in light of the totality of the circumstances. Gall v. United States,
`
`552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). “[T]he party who challenges the
`
`sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the
`
`light of both th[e] record and the factors in [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)].” United States
`
`v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). “[O]rdinarily we would expect a
`
`sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable.” Id.
`
`Gonzales argues that the district court failed to adequately and properly
`
`In his statement of the issues, Gonzales challenges both the substantive and procedural
`1
`reasonableness of his sentence. In his argument, however, Gonzales challenges only the
`substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We conclude that Gonzales has waived the issue of
`procedural reasonableness. See United States v. Gupta, 463 F.3d 1182, 1195 (11th Cir. 2006)
`(“We may decline to address an argument where a party fails to provide arguments on the merits
`of an issue in its initial or reply brief. Without such argument the issue is deemed waived.”).
`Even if Gonzales had not waived the issue, we would review only for plain error because
`Gonzales’s objection at sentencing challenged only the substantive reasonableness of his 60-
`month sentence. See United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2006). For this
`Court to correct plain error at sentencing, a defendant must establish that there is a reasonable
`probability that, but for the error, he would have received a lesser sentence. United States v.
`Arias-Izquierdo, 449 F.3d 1168, 1190 (11th Cir. 2006). As Gonzales has not shown that he
`received a longer sentence because of a procedural error, he could not prevail under plain error
`review.
`
`3
`
`
`
`consider his history and characteristics and the nature and circumstances of the
`
`offense, as required by § 3553(a)(1), and imposed a sentence that was greater than
`
`necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a)(2).
`
`Gonzales’s advisory guideline range was 51 to 60 months. His original conviction
`
`was for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in
`
`violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Given that Gonzales’s original conviction was for
`
`conduct similar to the violation that resulted in the revocation of his supervised
`
`release, we cannot say that his within-guideline sentence of 60 months is
`
`unreasonable. See § 3553(a)(2) (requiring courts to consider the need for the
`
`sentence “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” and “to protect the
`
`public from further crimes of the defendant”).
`
`For these reasons, both the revocation of Gonzales’s supervised release and
`
`his 60-month sentence are AFFIRMED.
`
`4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
