Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

United States v. Luis Alfredo Parrales Bravo

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-12347
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (43.9K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12347 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 1 of 9

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

---

No. 25-12347
Non-Argument Calendar

---

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus

LUIS ALFREDO PARRALES BRAVO,
Defendant-Appellant.

---

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cr-00097-WFJ-TGW-3

---

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Alfredo Parrales Bravo appeals the denial of his motion
for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2), based
on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that
USCA11 Case: 25-12347 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 2 of 9

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12347

reduced his guidelines range.1 He argues that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his motion by improperly weighing
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors and relying on other improper
factors including his immigration status and the fact that he did not
enter a plea agreement or cooperate with the government. After
review, we affirm.
I. Background
In 2017, the United States Coast Guard intercepted a go-fast
vessel displaying no indicia of nationality on the high seas. Parrales
Bravo, a native and citizen of Ecuador, was one of four crew
members on the vessel. Authorities discovered 46 bales of cocaine
on the vessel weighing approximately 1,100 kilograms.
A federal grand jury indicted Parrales Bravo on one count of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or
more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, and one count of possession with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel

1 On November 1, 2023, Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines went

into effect. See U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C, amend. 821 (2023). As relevant here,
that amendment applies retroactively and provides a two-level reduction in a
defendant’s offense level if the defendant satisfies ten criteria, including that
the defendant did not receive any criminal-history points. Id.; see also U.S.S.G.
§ 4C1.1(a).
USCA11 Case: 25-12347 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 3 of 9

25-12347 Opinion of the Court 3

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 2 He entered an
open plea of guilty to both counts.
As relevant here, Parrales Bravo had no prior criminal
history. His advisory guidelines range was 135 to 168 months’
imprisonment. He faced a statutory mandatory minimum of ten
years’ imprisonment and a maximum of life. After considering the
parties’ arguments, the guidelines, and the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors, the district court imposed a sentence of 135 months’
imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release.
Parrales Bravo appealed, challenging the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence, and we affirmed. United States v.
Bravo, 731 F. App’x 840 (11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished).
In June 2024, Parrales Bravo filed a pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion
for a reduction in sentence based on the retroactive application of
Amendment 821 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court
appointed the Federal Public Defender’s Office to represent him.
In the unopposed counseled motion, Parrales Bravo argued that he
qualified for a sentence reduction because Amendment 821
reduced the advisory guidelines range for offenders like himself,
who among other factors, had zero criminal history points.3 He

2 Parrales Bravo was paroled into the United States for prosecution in March

2017, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement lodged a detainer against
him at that time.
3 The United States Probation Office submitted a memorandum in
conjunction with the motion indicating that Parrales Bravo qualified for a
reduction under Amendment 821 and that his amended advisory guidelines
range was 120 to 135 months’ imprisonment. The probation office further
USCA11 Case: 25-12347 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 4 of 9

4 Opinion of the Court 25-12347

argued that the district court should reduce his sentence to the
greater of 120 months’ imprisonment or time-served in light of his
background and abusive childhood, his post-incarceration conduct,
and the lack of danger he posed to the community. He noted that
he had been incarcerated for eight years and longed to be reunited
with his 10-year-old son in Ecuador. With respect to his
post-incarceration conduct, Parrales Bravo emphasized that he had
completed 573 hours of educational credit while in prison, which
would give him “a better opportunity for lawful employment
when he returns to Ecuador.” He further noted that he had only
received one prison disciplinary report in his eight years of
incarceration for possessing an unspecified “hazardous tool” on an
unspecified date.
The district court denied the motion, concluding that,
although Parrales Bravo was eligible for a sentence reduction based
on the amended guidelines range, the § 3553(a) factors “militate[d]
against a reduction.” The court emphasized the seriousness of the
offense, highlighting that the offense was “a massive drug venture
to smuggle in excess of five kilograms in multiple bales of cocaine”
and that “1,100 kilograms” of cocaine were recovered on the vessel.
The court further noted that Parrales Bravo’s initial sentence of 135
months’ imprisonment was at the bottom of the initial guidelines
range, which had included credit for his acceptance of
responsibility and safety-valve relief. Thus, the court concluded

noted that Parrales Bravo “had an immigration detainer” and was “a lifelong
resident of Ecuador.”
USCA11 Case: 25-12347 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 5 of 9

25-12347 Opinion of the Court 5

that the 135-month sentence “best account[ed] for the seriousness
of the offense,” and that a reduction would not promote respect for
the law or provide adequate deterrence. (quotations omitted).
The court noted that two of Parrales Bravo’s codefendants had
received a lesser sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment, but that
they had signed a plea agreement and cooperated with the
government while Parrales Bravo had not done so. Additionally,
with regard to post-sentencing conduct, the court noted that the
fact that Parrales Bravo had received a prison disciplinary action for
possession of a hazardous tool weighed against his request for a
reduction. Finally, the court noted in passing that Parrales Bravo
would “most likely be deported to Ecuador.” Parrales Bravo timely
appealed.
II. Discussion
Parrales Bravo argues that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for a sentence reduction by
improperly weighing the § 3553(a) factors and relying on other
improper considerations, including his immigration status and the
fact that he did not enter a plea agreement and did not cooperate
with the government.
We review a district court’s denial of a § 3582(c) motion for
an abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911
(11th Cir. 2021). The “district court abuses its discretion if it applies
an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making
the determination,” makes clearly erroneous factual findings, or
USCA11 Case: 25-12347 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 6 of 9

6 Opinion of the Court 25-12347

“commits a clear error of judgment.” Id. at 911–12 (quotations
omitted).
Generally, a court “may not modify a term of imprisonment
once it has been imposed.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c). However,
§ 3582(c)(2) permits a district court to reduce a term of
imprisonment if the defendant was sentenced based on a guidelines
range “that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission,” 4 provided that “such a reduction is consistent with
the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission,” and after considering the § 3553(a) factors. Id.
§ 3582(c)(2).
The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for the
sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence; (4) the need to
protect the public; (5) the Sentencing Guidelines range; and (6) the
need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553 (a)(1), (a)(2)(A)–(C), (a)(6). The district court need not
address each of the § 3553(a) factors and “[t]he weight given to any
specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the
district court.” United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1241 (11th Cir.
2021) (quotations omitted). Nevertheless, “a district court abuses

4 It is undisputed that Bravo was statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction

based on Amendment 821.
USCA11 Case: 25-12347 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 7 of 9

25-12347 Opinion of the Court 7

its discretion when it (1) fails to afford consideration to relevant
factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight
to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of
judgment in considering the proper factors.” Id. (alteration
adopted) (quotations omitted).
In addition to considering the § 3553(a) factors in deciding
whether to grant a sentence reduction for an otherwise eligible
defendant, the district court may also “consider the defendant’s
post-sentencing conduct” as well as “public safety considerations.”
United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009).
However, “a judge may not impose a more severe sentence that he
would have otherwise based on unfounded assumptions regarding
an individual’s immigration status or on his personal views of
immigration policy.” United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d
1248, 1253 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Parrales Bravo’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence
reduction. The district court explained that a sentence reduction
would be inappropriate in light of the § 3553(a) factors,
emphasizing the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the
need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
promote respect for the law, provide adequate deterrence, and
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. 5 Although Parrales

5 Parrales Bravo argues that the district court improperly considered the fact

that he did not enter a plea and did not cooperate with the government as a
basis for denying the reduction. We disagree. The district court’s discussion
USCA11 Case: 25-12347 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 8 of 9

8 Opinion of the Court 25-12347

Bravo argues that the district court placed too much weight on the
nature and circumstances of the offense and too little weight on his
mitigating circumstances and his positive post-sentencing conduct,
the weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter
“committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” See
Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1241 (quotation omitted).
Finally, Parrales Bravo argues that the district court
improperly considered his immigration status as a basis for denying
the sentence reduction. His argument is unpersuasive. The district
court did not mention Parrales Bravo’s immigration status when it
stated its reasons for denying the motion based on the § 3553(a)
factors. Instead, after setting forth its reasons for denying the
motion, the district noted in passing in the final sentence of the
order that Parrales Bravo “will most likely be deported to
Ecuador.” 6 Contrary to his argument, there is no indication that

of the fact that Parrales Bravo did not enter a plea agreement and did not
cooperate with the government occurred in the context of explaining why two
of Parrales Bravo’s codefendants, who had entered plea agreements and
cooperated with the government, received a lesser sentence of 120 months’
imprisonment, and why Parrales Bravo’s higher sentence of 135 months’ was
appropriate in his case and did not reflect an unwarranted sentencing disparity.
One of the considerations the district court must consider under § 3553(a) is
the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. Accordingly, the district
court did not err in considering whether Parrales Bravo’s sentence reflected
an unwarranted sentencing disparity.
6 It is not surprising that the district court noted that Parrales Bravo would

likely ultimately be deported in the order given that both Parrales Bravo and
the probation office brought to the court’s attention in their filings that
Parrales Bravo would likely be returned to Ecuador upon his release.
USCA11 Case: 25-12347 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 9 of 9

25-12347 Opinion of the Court 9

the district court improperly denied the motion “based on
unfounded assumptions regarding [his] immigration status or on
[the judge’s] personal views of immigration policy” or otherwise
considered his immigration status a disqualifying factor. See
Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d at 1253. Accordingly, Parrales Bravo
has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motion, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.