United States v. Luis Carlos Murillo Asprilla

USCA11 Case: 25-12289 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 09/09/2026 Page: 1 of 8

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12289 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LUIS CARLOS MURILLO ASPRILLA, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00380-WFJ-AAS-2 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Luis Carlos Murillo Asprilla appeals the district court’s de- nial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. sec- tion 3582(c)(2), arguing the district court made a clearly erroneous USCA11 Case: 25-12289 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 09/09/2026 Page: 2 of 8

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 2, 2020, a military patrol plane spotted Mu- rillo Asprilla and two crewmates sailing a go-fast boat in interna- tional waters south of Panama. Suspecting the boat of trafficking narcotics, the plane reported the boat’s location to the United States Coast Guard, which sent a helicopter to intercept it. When the crew refused an order to stop, the helicopter shot out the boat’s engine, leaving it dead in the water. The helicopter then observed Murillo Asprilla and his crewmates dumping bales of cocaine into the ocean. After boarding the boat and arresting the crew, the Coast Guard recovered eight bales containing about 187 kilograms of cocaine from the area around the boat.

Murillo Asprilla was charged with and pleaded guilty to con- spiring to possess, and possessing, with the intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine while upon the high seas and aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(a), (b); 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii.) In ad- vance of sentencing, the United States Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation report, which assigned Murillo Asprilla an advisory guideline range of 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment based on a total offense level of thirty-one and a criminal history category of one. Varying downward from the advisory guideline range, the district court sentenced Murillo Asprilla to ninety-seven months’ imprisonment.

USCA11 Case: 25-12289 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 09/09/2026 Page: 3 of 8

25-12289 Opinion of the Court 3 In 2024, the probation office reported to the district court that Murillo Asprilla was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to an amended guideline range of 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment. 1 Murillo Asprilla filed a motion for a sen- tence reduction under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2), requesting a low-end sentence of 87 months’ imprisonment.

The district court denied the motion. It acknowledged that Murillo Asprilla was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821, and noted his argument that he “ha[d] done well during his incarceration[,] ha[d] no disciplinary violations[,] and ha[d] completed several educational courses.” Still, the district court concluded that the section 3553(a) “sentencing factors . . . militate[d] against a reduction.” The district court reasoned that “[section 3553(a)] requires the sentence to reflect the nature and circumstances of the offense,” and here, “[t]his was a large cocaine smuggling case where [Murillo Asprilla] and his colleagues resisted arrest, requiring the Coast Guard to shoot out the engines on their vessel” and “[t]hey benefited from the obstruction because it ena- bled them to jettison contraband,” with “only 187 kilos of cocaine USCA11 Case: 25-12289 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 09/09/2026 Page: 4 of 8

STANDARD OF REVIEW We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). United States v. Car- aballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2017). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, [] makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous,” or “commits a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911– (11th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). “We will find clear error if, after reviewing all the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Philossaint, 141 F.4th 1334, 1339 (11th Cir. 2025) (citation modi- fied).

DISCUSSION Murillo Asprilla argues that the district court abused its dis- cretion under section 3582(c)(2) because its statement that Murillo Asprilla and his crewmates “benefitted from the[ir] obstruction” and “only 187 kilos of cocaine were recovered” implied a clearly erroneous factual finding that his offense involved “more cocaine than was recovered.” But the district court accurately recounted USCA11 Case: 25-12289 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 09/09/2026 Page: 5 of 8

25-12289 Opinion of the Court 5 that Murillo Asprilla and his crewmates “resisted arrest, requiring the Coast Guard to shoot out the engines on their vessel,” and this “obstruction . . . enabled them to jettison contraband,” leaving “only 187 kilos of cocaine [] recovered.” This tracked the uncon- tested facts presented in the presentence investigation report, which indicated that the boat was carrying “at least 187.3 kilograms of cocaine.” The district court fairly inferred that Murillo Asprilla and his crewmates “benefitted from the[ir] obstruction,” even if they were eventually caught and sentenced based on the 187 kilo- grams of cocaine recovered.

Murillo Asprilla responds that the district court’s language also implies an “incorrect assumption” that “his base offense level would have been higher” “had additional cocaine been recovered.”

But the district court never speculated about a higher offense level based on unrecovered cocaine and clearly determined Murillo Asprilla’s offense level based on the 187 kilograms of cocaine re- covered, applying the guideline section for an offense involving at least 150 kilograms but less than 450 kilograms or more of cocaine.

See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5), (c)(2).

Murillo Asprilla also contends that the district court’s char- acterization of his conduct as “obstruction” “violates the spirit” of the sentencing guidelines because it penalized him without apply- ing the obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 3C1.1.

But, under the section 3553(a) factors, the district court could con- sider all conduct relevant to the “nature and circumstances” of the offense, whether or not that conduct resulted in an enhancement.

USCA11 Case: 25-12289 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 09/09/2026 Page: 6 of 8

Finally, Murillo Asprilla contends that the district court “commit[ed] a clear error of judgment” under section 3553(a) by putting too much weight on the nature and circumstances of the offense and not enough on mitigating circumstances like his good conduct in prison. We see no clear error of judgment.

Under section 3582(c)(2), a district court “may reduce the term of imprisonment” for “a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . af- ter considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] section 3553(a).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 3553(a), in turn, requires the district court to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than neces- sary,” to achieve the purposes of sentencing set out in section 3553(a)(2), including the need for the sentence to “reflect the seri- ousness of the offense,” “promote respect for the law,” “provide just punishment,” “afford adequate deterrence,” “protect the pub- USCA11 Case: 25-12289 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 09/09/2026 Page: 7 of 8

25-12289 Opinion of the Court 7 lic from further crimes of the defendant,” and “provide the defend- ant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” Id. § 3553(a). To determine whether a sentence achieves these pur- poses, the district court must consider a variety of factors, including “the nature and circumstances of the offense,” the defendant’s “his- tory and characteristics,” “the kinds of sentences available,” the ap- plicable guideline range, the Commission’s policy statements, “the need to provide restitution to any victims,” and “the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.” Id. In evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence, we consider “the totality of the circumstances and whether the sentence achieves the sentencing purposes stated in [section] 3553(a).”

United States v. Goldman, 953 F.3d 1213, 1221–22 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). A district court “needn’t address each of the [section] 3553(a) factors or all of the mitigating evidence” and the weight accorded to each factor “is committed” to the district court’s “sound discretion.” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1241 (11th Cir. 2021) (citation modified).

Here, the district court accounted for Murillo Asprilla’s ar- gument that he “ha[d] done well” in prison and completed “sev- eral” educational courses but determined that the mitigating cir- cumstances did not justify a sentence reduction in light of the to- tality of circumstances under section 3553(a). See Goldman, 953 F.3d at 1221. As the district court explained: (1) the offense in- USCA11 Case: 25-12289 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 09/09/2026 Page: 8 of 8

AFFIRMED.