USA v. Juan Cardena, No. 10-15551 (11th Cir. 2011)

 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[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-15551 JULY 26, 2011 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20501-KMM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JUAN JAVIER CARDENAS, a.k.a. Maceo, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (July 26, 2011) Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Juan Javier Cardenas appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 121 months following his plea of guilt to conspiring to commit fraud in connection with access devices, 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2), and fraud in connection with the trafficking of unauthorized access devices, id. § 1029(a)(2). Cardenas argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain why it did not order his federal sentence to run concurrently with any state sentence that might be imposed for pending state charges against him. We affirm. We review sentences for reasonableness, which is deferential standard of review for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). Cardenas s sentence is procedurally reasonable. At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated that it had considered the parties statements, the presentence investigation report, and the statutory factors for sentencing, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court imposed the sentence requested by the parties. Cardenas later requested that the district court provide him credit for time served in state custody awaiting trial on state charges, but Cardenas did not request that his federal sentence run concurrently with any future state sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion. AFFIRMED. 2

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.