USA v. Arturo Organes-Gandavilla, No. 06-11135 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 06-11135 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OCTOBER 17, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 05-20719-CR-DMM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ARTURO ORGANES-GANDAVILLA, a.k.a. Arturo Organes Gandavilla, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (October 17, 2006) Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Arturo Organes-Gandavilla appeals his combined sentence of 228 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine while on board a vessel, 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(a), possession with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine while on board a vessel, 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(j), and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Organes-Gandavilla argues that his sentence is unreasonable because of an unwarranted sentencing disparity between his sentence and the sentences of his co-conspirators. We affirm. We review the sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005). [W]hen the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one. Id. Section 3553 of the sentencing guidelines includes as a sentencing factor the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The district court considered this factor and found that the greater sentence imposed on Organes-Gandavilla was not unwarranted because Organes-Gandavilla was responsible for a firearm. The sentence imposed was not unreasonable. 2 The sentence is AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
