USA v. Alexis Fuente, No. 11-10911 (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[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-10911 SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20793-KMM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALEXIS FUENTES, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (September 29, 2011) Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Alexis Fuentes appeals his 71-month sentence, imposed after he pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Fuentes contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to articulate sufficient findings to support its length. His sentence fell at the top of the applicable 57 71 month Guidelines range. We review a sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). This Court will not reverse a district court so long as the district court s ruling does not constitute a clear error of judgment. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008). Ordinarily, we expect sentences within the recommended Guidelines range to be reasonable. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The record here shows that Fuentes s argument is without merit. The district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and clearly articulated its reasoning for concluding that a sentence at the high-end of the Guidelines range was necessary to comply with the purposes of § 3553(a). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm. 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.
