United States v. Mirasol: Re-affirming that Correct Guideline Calculation Alone Satisfies the § 3553(a)(6) “Sentence-Disparity” Inquiry

Introduction

In United States v. Arvin Joseph Mirasol, No. 24-13022 (11th Cir. June 24, 2025) (non-published), the Eleventh Circuit addressed a recurrent question in federal sentencing: How much must a district judge do to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), the command to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities? A defendant convicted of producing child pornography received the statutory maximum sentence of 360 months—squarely at the bottom of his advisory Guideline range. On appeal he argued that the district court failed to consider Sentencing Commission statistics supposedly showing nationwide downward variances in similar cases. The Eleventh Circuit, relying heavily on its prior decision in United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014), held that:

A district court satisfies § 3553(a)(6) when it correctly calculates the Guidelines, states it has considered all § 3553(a) factors, and offers a brief explanation—even if it does not discuss statistical studies not presented below.
Sentencing Commission reports (2012 & 2021 child-pornography publications) impose no heightened duty on the court and do not create per se unwarranted disparity if ignored.
On plain-error review, a within-Guidelines statutory-maximum sentence for an offender with multiple very young victims is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.

The decision thus reinforces a line of Eleventh Circuit precedent giving district judges wide latitude and placing heavy burdens on appellants who claim sentencing disparities.

Summary of the Judgment

The panel (Newsom, Lagoa, and Wilson, JJ.) affirmed Mirasol’s 360-month sentence. Key holdings:

No Procedural Error. The district court said on the record that it considered all § 3553(a) factors, including the need to avoid unwarranted disparities. That satisfies Eleventh Circuit requirements (Sanchez).
No Substantive Unreasonableness. A within-Guidelines sentence rarely indicates disparity, and statistics comparing dissimilar offenders (fewer victims, older victims) are not “apples-to-apples.”
Sentencing Commission Reports. Following Cubero, the 2012 and 2021 Commission reports do not alter courts’ duties or compel variances. Failure to discuss them is not plain error.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014). Central precedent. Held that the 2012 child-pornography report does not heighten sentencing duties; a district court need not discuss it. Mirasol extends this rationale to the 2021 report.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007). Supreme Court teaching that proper Guideline calculation inherently addresses disparity concerns.
United States v. Sanchez, 586 F.3d 918 (11th Cir. 2009) & Wayerski: Minimal articulation standard—court need not tick through every § 3553(a) factor.
United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) & Perkins: Three-part abuse-of-discretion test for substantive reasonableness.
United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 2009). “Apples-to-apples” standard for disparity claims; statistics must involve similarly situated defendants.
United States v. Waters, 937 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2019). Plain-error standard when no objection below.

Legal Reasoning

1. Procedural Review (Plain-Error Framework). Because defense counsel affirmatively said “no objection,” any error must be (a) error, (b) plain, (c) affecting substantial rights, and (d) undermining the integrity of proceedings. The panel found no error—thus the analysis stopped at step one.

2. Substantive Review. The court applied the three-part Rosales-Bruno test:

Weight to relevant factors. The district judge considered the egregious facts: 13 victims, including a two-year-old, repeated exploitation.
No improper factor. The judge did not rely on irrelevant facts.
No clear error of judgment. 360 months lies within the Guidelines range; national averages decrease when fewer/older victims—those comparators are dissimilar.

3. Commission Reports. The opinion re-emphasises that empirical criticism of child-pornography Guidelines, standing alone, does not compel a variance. Unless a defendant shows that other offenders with very similar conduct and records consistently receive lower sentences, the statistics are beside the point.

Impact on Future Cases

The decision—though unpublished—consolidates several important practical effects in the Eleventh Circuit:

Minimal Explanation Standard Survives. District judges remain safe in merely stating they considered § 3553(a); extensive statistical discussion is not mandatory.
Commission Empirical Critiques Hold Limited Force. Defendants cannot rely on Commission reports to establish disparity unless they tie the data closely to their own facts.
Plain-Error Hurdle Reinforced. Express “no objection” at sentencing virtually forecloses appellate relief absent egregious error.
Child-Pornography Guideline Challenges Weakened. Unless Congress or the Sentencing Commission reforms § 2G2.1, within-Guideline sentences—even statutory maxima—will likely be upheld.

Complex Concepts Simplified

§ 3553(a) Factors: A list of considerations—nature of offense, criminal history, deterrence, disparity, etc.—that judges must weigh when selecting a sentence.
Procedural vs. Substantive Reasonableness: – Procedural: Did the judge follow the right steps? – Substantive: Is the sentence itself reasonable given the facts?
Plain Error Review: Four-part test; hardest standard for defendants because the appellate court will correct only clear and obvious errors that seriously affect justice.
Guideline Range: Advisory sentencing bracket produced by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines; courts must calculate it but may vary.
Within-Guidelines Sentence: A sentence falling inside the advisory range; presumed reasonable in practice (not formally, but appellate deference is high).

Conclusion

United States v. Mirasol affirms the Eleventh Circuit’s deferential stance toward district-court sentencing, especially in child-pornography cases. The panel reiterates two pillars: (1) correct Guideline calculation effectively addresses disparity concerns under § 3553(a)(6), and (2) empirical criticisms embedded in Sentencing Commission reports do not automatically render a Guidelines-level sentence unreasonable. For practitioners, the message is clear:

Raise your empirical arguments—and supporting studies—during the sentencing hearing, or they are essentially forfeited.
Expect uphill battles challenging within-Guidelines sentences on appeal, particularly when egregious facts support the statutory maximum.

In the broader context, the decision underscores the judiciary’s continued reliance on the Guidelines as a proxy for uniformity, leaving the task of substantive reform to Congress and the Sentencing Commission rather than to appellate courts.