USA v. Carlos Montoya, No. 19-13158 (11th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 19-13158 Date Filed: 05/13/2021 Page: 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13158 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20393-MGC-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS MONTOYA, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (May 13, 2021) Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Carlos Montoya appeals his total 97-month sentence imposed after the jury found Montoya guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 USCA11 Case: 19-13158 Date Filed: 05/13/2021 Page: 2 of 4 U.S.C. § 1349, and of federal program bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666. Montoya also appeals the district court’s restitution award. Montoya has filed an unopposed motion for summary reversal and a motion for a stay of the briefing schedule. Briefly stated, Montoya’s convictions stem from Montoya’s involvement in a scheme to defraud the government. Montoya and Sandra Ruballo conspired to submit inflated claims for reimbursement under the Child Care Food Program (“CCFP”), a federally-funded program designed to provide nutritious meals to underprivileged children at daycare centers. As part of the scheme, Ruballo -- in exchange for kickbacks from Montoya -- rigged the bidding process to ensure that Montoya’s catering company received the government catering contracts. The district court conducted a combined sentencing hearing for Montoya and for Ruballo. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court sentenced Montoya to 97 months’ imprisonment and sentenced Ruballo to 120 months’ imprisonment. The district court also ordered Montoya and Ruballo to pay restitution in the amount of $12,962,399 and $13,231,277, respectively. We later vacated Ruballo’s sentence and remanded for the district court to reconsider and to explain more fully its calculation of the loss amount attributable to Ruballo and of the amount of restitution owed. See United States v. Ruballo, 2 USCA11 Case: 19-13158 Date Filed: 05/13/2021 Page: 3 of 4 833 F. App’x 275, 283 (11th Cir. 2020) (unpublished). We concluded that -absent other supporting evidence or explanation -- the district court’s reliance on an email listing the amounts of restitution purportedly owed by Ruballo and by Montoya allowed for no meaningful appellate review. In the light of our decision in Ruballo, Montoya moves for summary reversal. Montoya seeks to challenge the district court’s calculation of the amount of loss and the amount of restitution owed on the same grounds raised on direct appeal by Ruballo. Summary disposition may be appropriate when “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, our decision in Ruballo -- concluding that the record allowed no meaningful appellate review of the district court’s calculation of the loss amount and the amount of restitution owed -- applies equally to the identical issue now raised by Montoya. See United States v. Siegelman, 786 F.3d 1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that the law-of-the-case doctrine “applies to those issues decided on a co-defendant’s earlier but closely related appeal.”). Under these circumstances, summary reversal is appropriate. 3 USCA11 Case: 19-13158 Date Filed: 05/13/2021 Page: 4 of 4 Accordingly, we GRANT Montoya’s motion for summary reversal, vacate his sentence, and remand for the district court to explain more fully its calculation of the amount of loss attributable to Montoya and the amount of restitution owed by Montoya. We DENY as moot Montoya’s motion to stay the briefing schedule. 4
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.
