United States v. Alejandro N. Zuniga

USCA11 Case: 25-12320 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 06/22/2026 Page: 1 of 5

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12320 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEJANDRO N. ZUNIGA,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cr-00078-MCR-2 ____________________

Before LUCK, LAGOA, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

A federal grand jury indicted Alejandro N. Zuniga on one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distrib- ute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12320 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), and 846 (Count 1); one count of conspir- acy to use a communication facility to facilitate a felony, in viola- tion of 21 U.S.C. §§ 843(b) and 846 (Count 2); and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (h) (Count 3). He pleaded guilty to all counts. The district court imposed a total term of 120 months imprison- ment. Zuniga timely appealed, arguing that the court committed procedural error in calculating his guidelines range. We affirm.

I.

At the sentence hearing, the district court made specific find- ings regarding sentencing guidelines calculations. It found Zuniga’s criminal history category to be I. And after considering the parties’ evidence, the court found that there were five or more participants involved in the drug distribution conspiracy and that Zuniga super- vised a “trail-car” driver who had transported cocaine to a drug transaction that Zuniga helped to complete. Because of Zuniga’s role in the conspiracy, the court increased his base offense level by three under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), yielding a total offense level of 32 and a guidelines range of 121 to 151 months.

Because Count I carried a mandatory minimum term of 120 months imprisonment, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), Zun- iga requested that the court sentence him to 120 months imprison- ment, which would reflect a one-month downward variance from the guidelines range. The government did not object to his re- quest. After considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court imposed that sentence, finding that a total term of 120 25-12320 Opinion of the Court 3 months imprisonment was sufficient but not greater than neces- sary. 1

Zuniga appeals his sentence, arguing that it’s procedurally unreasonable based on his view that the district court incorrectly calculated his guidelines range when it applied the three-level role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). He contends that the evi- dence doesn’t support the finding that he managed or supervised the trail-car driver. Instead, he asserts that he was an “equal[]” to the driver. 2

II.

A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if the district court improperly calculates the guidelines range or bases a sen- tence on “clearly erroneous facts.” Gall v. United States, 552, U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of the guidelines and its application of the guidelines to the facts. United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1222 (11th Cir. 2018). We

For guidelines calculation purposes, the three-level aggra- vating role enhancement applies if the government proves by a pre- ponderance of the evidence that “the defendant was a manager or supervisor . . . and the criminal activity involved five or more par- ticipants[.]” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b); see Shabazz, 887 F.3d at 1222. 3 To qualify for the three-level enhancement, “the defendant need only manage or supervise one other participant in the criminal activity.” United States v. Sosa, 777 F.3d 1279, 1301 (11th Cir. 2015). The en- hancement, however, “cannot be based solely on a finding that a defendant managed the assets of a conspiracy.” Id. (quotation marks omitted) (explaining that the enhancement must be based on the defendant’s management or exercise of “control over another participant”).

Government-intercepted text messages and phone commu- nications between Zuniga and a higher-ranking member of the conspiracy support the permissible finding that Zuniga was not only higher in the hierarchy than the driver but also supervised him. See generally United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 945 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (“[A] trial court’s choice between two permissible views of the evidence is the very essence of the clear

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Zuniga supervised the trail-car driver. Therefore, it correctly applied the three-level role adjustment when calculating the guidelines range.

AFFIRMED.