United States v. Angel Gutierrez-Romero

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 25-12193

Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

ANGEL ALEXANDER GUTIERREZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00003-WFJ-TGW-1 ____________________

Before JORDAN, ABUDU, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. A BUDU, Circuit Judge:

Angel Alexander Gutierrez-Romero, a federal prisoner, ap- peals the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). After careful review,

1

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12193 we vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceed- ings consistent with our opinion.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In December 2021, a maritime patrol aircraft detected a ves- sel traveling in international waters with packages visible on deck. Following the vessel's detection, its crew, which included Gutierrez-Romero, jettisoned the packages into the ocean. Subse- quently, a Dutch naval ship patrolling nearby launched a helicop- ter, which ultimately used disabling fire to stop the vessel. The United States Coast Guard ("USCG") then intercepted the vessel, and USCG personnel recovered four bales of cocaine, weighing a total of 110 kilograms, from the ocean.

A grand jury indicted Gutierrez-Romero with one count of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a)‒(b), and 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii); and one count of pos- sessing with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of co- caine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a), 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Gutierrez-Romero pled guilty to both counts without a plea agreement.

Before sentencing, the probation officer prepared a presen- tence investigation report ("PSI"). In describing Gutierrez-Romero's offense conduct, the officer noted that the USCG had recovered four bales of cocaine, which collectively

2

25-12193 Opinion of the Court 3 weighed 110 kilograms, and that Gutierrez-Romero had been the captain of the vessel. The PSI did not reference any additional co- caine that the USCG failed to recover. Thus, the probation officer calculated Gutierrez-Romero's base offense level of 34 using the guideline for offenses involving between 50 and 150 kilograms of cocaine, relying on the USCG's recovery of approximately 110 kil- ograms of cocaine. The officer then applied a two-level enhance- ment for captaining the vessel and several reductions, yielding a total offense level of 31. Additionally, the probation officer noted that Gutierrez-Romero had no criminal history, yielding a criminal history category of I. Based on an offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of I, Gutierrez-Romero's guideline imprisonment range was 108 to 135 months.

Gutierrez-Romero objected to the two-level enhancement, asserting that he had not been the captain of the vessel. At the sentencing hearing, the district court sustained Gutierrez-Romero's objection and determined that his total of- fense level was 29. It also found that his criminal history category was I, yielding a guideline imprisonment range of 87 to 108 months. Thus, the court sentenced Gutierrez-Romero to 87 months' imprisonment.

In June 2025, Gutierrez-Romero moved for a reduced sen- tence, pursuant to Section 3582(c)(2). He argued that he was eligi- ble for relief under Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and that his total offense level should be decreased by two, yielding a guideline imprisonment range of 70 to 87 months. Highlighting

3

4 Opinion of the Court 25-12193 his difficult upbringing, acceptance of responsibility, good conduct while incarcerated, and motivation for committing the offense, Gutierrez-Romero contended that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors supported granting relief. Thus, he requested a term of imprison- ment of "70 months or time-served."

The district court denied Gutierrez-Romero's motion. It in- dicated that he was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amend- ment 821, recounted facts about his upbringing, and acknowledged his argument regarding his positive post-sentencing conduct. However, the court determined that the Section 3553(a) fac- tors—namely the circumstances of the offense—militated against reducing his sentence. The court stated that the offense was part of a "large cocaine smuggling case," during which Gutierrez-Romero and the rest of the crew had resisted arrest. It also explained that the USCG had been forced "to shoot out the engines on their vessel" to intercept it.¹The court concluded that the crew had "benefited from the obstruction because it enabled them to jettison contraband," such that "only 110 kilos of cocaine were recovered." Thus, it determined that a reduced sentence would not reflect the gravity of the offense, provide adequate de- terrence, or promote respect for the law, as Gutierrez-Romero had

4

25-12193 Opinion of the Court 5 already "benefited from obstruction," and it declined to grant the requested reduction.

Gutierrez-Romero appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court's determinations about the scope of its authority under Section 3582(c)(2) de novo. United States

v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012). When Section 3582(c)(2) applies, "we review a district court's decision to grant or deny a sentence reduction only for abuse of discretion." United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2017). While this standard is deferential, "[a] district court abuses its dis- cretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous." United States v. Jordan, 582 F.3d 1239, 1249 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1096 (11th Cir.

2004)).

A factual finding is clearly erroneous when "there is evi- dence to support it," but "the reviewing court on the entire evi- dence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." OHI Asset (VA) Martinsville SNF, LLC v. Wagner (In re Wagner), 115 F.4th 1296, 1303 (11th Cir. 2024) (internal quo- tation marks omitted) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). Nevertheless, a court's choice between two reasonable views of the evidence is not a clearly erroneous finding of fact. Id.

5

6 Opinion of the Court 25-12193

III. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Gutierrez-Romero argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for a sentence reduction because it based its decision on clearly erroneous factual findings and the "in- correct assumption" that he possessed more cocaine than the amount recovered. He states that the PSI reflected that the USCG recovered four bales of cocaine, weighing 110 kilograms in total, and there was no record evidence that he possessed additional co- caine.

Gutierrez-Romero further maintains that his conduct did not constitute "obstruction" because he did not hinder "the admin- istration of justice." Additionally, he asserts that the court improp- erly evaluated the Section 3553(a) factors by placing too much weight on the erroneously described circumstances of his offense and too little weight on relevant mitigating factors, such as his background, post-sentencing conduct, and amended guideline range.

Section 3582(c)(2) provides that a district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant "who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission," so long as "such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In evaluating a motion for a sentence reduction, the review- ing court engages in a two-step inquiry. See Dillon v. United States,

560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). First, it must recalculate the guideline

6

25-12193 Opinion of the Court 7 range under the amended guidelines to determine whether a retro- active amendment lowered the defendant's guideline range and ex- amine whether relief would be consistent with the applicable pol- icy statement. Id. If the court concludes that the defendant is eli- gible for relief, it then "consider[s] whether the authorized reduc- tion is warranted, either in whole or in part, according to the fac- tors set forth in [Section] 3553(a)." Id. at 826. These factors in- clude, among others, the circumstances of the offense; the defend- ant's history and characteristics; the guideline range; and the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and afford adequate deterrence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Here, the district court properly determined that Gutierrez-Romero was eligible for a sentence reduction under Sec- tion 3582(c). However, it abused its discretion by concluding that a reduction was ultimately unwarranted under § 3553(a) because its decision relied on clearly erroneous factual findings. Jordan,

582 F.3d at 1249. Specifically, the court found that Gutierrez-Romero benefited from the "obstruction" because it en- abled the crew to jettison the contraband from the vessel, resulting in the recovery of "only 110 kilos of cocaine." This state- ment—which suggests that the USCG did not recover the full amount of cocaine involved in the offense, such that Gutierrez-Romero's original guideline range was lower than it should have been—is inaccurate.

7

8 Opinion of the Court 25-12193 The record evidence establishes that Gutierrez-Romero's of- fense involved four bales of cocaine, weighing a total of 110 kilo- grams. In calculating his base offense level, the probation officer relied on the assumption that the offense involved between 50 and 150 kilograms of cocaine, and there is no evidence to suggest that this estimate was inaccurate. Instead, the record supports the con- clusion that Gutierrez-Romero's original sentence was based on an accurate estimate of the amount of cocaine involved in the offense. Thus, the district court's implicit conclusion that the severity of Gutierrez-Romero's original sentence did not reflect the actual amount of cocaine involved is unsupported, and therefore, clearly erroneous. See In re Wagner, 115 F.4th at 1303. Furthermore, in explaining why the Section 3553(a) factors militated against granting relief, the court based its conclusion that a reduction was unwarranted, in part, on the clearly erroneous fac- tual finding that Gutierrez-Romero had not been held accountable for the full amount of cocaine on the vessel. The district court's reliance on this erroneous finding in denying the motion for a sen- tence reduction was an abuse of discretion. See Jordan, 582 F.3d at

1249.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons we have explained, we vacate the district court's order denying Gutierrez-Romero's request for a sentence reduction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Our disposition expresses no definitive instruction as to

8

25-12193 Opinion of the Court 9 whether, or to what extent, Gutierrez-Romero merits a sentence reduction.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

9