USA v. Osvaldo Domingo Ceballo, No. 14-12420 (11th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-12420 Date Filed: 02/02/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-12420 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:12-cr-80211-DTKH-8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSVALDO DOMINGO CEBALLO, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (February 2, 2016) Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES and EBEL, ∗ Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: ∗ Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 14-12420 Date Filed: 02/02/2016 Page: 2 of 2 Osvaldo Domingo Ceballo appeals his convictions for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and one count of possession of five or more kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute. He also appeals his ensuing total 216-month sentence, imposed within the advisory guidelines range. Specifically, Ceballo asks us to consider: (1) Whether the district court erred in denying Ceballo’s motion to suppress. (2) Whether there was insufficient evidence to support Ceballo’s convictions. (3) Whether the district court abused its discretion in permitting the government to introduce certain evidence at trial. (4) Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Ceballo’s request for a theory-of-defense jury instruction. (5) Whether the district court committed sentencing errors by applying a role enhancement, denying Ceballo’s request for safety valve protection, and denying Ceballo’s request for a variance. After thoroughly considering these issues in light of the relevant law, the record on appeal, and the parties’ arguments in their briefs and at oral argument, we hold there is no reversible error. 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.