## Facts

- Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uncovered an Atlanta-area human-trafficking and forced-prostitution operation involving Mexican girls and young women.
- Victims were recruited in Mexico through false promises of legitimate work and, in some instances, romantic relationships.
- After being brought into the United States unlawfully, victims were told they owed a debt for smuggling and living expenses and were required to repay it through prostitution.
- The operation used threats, monitoring, and frequent physical abuse to compel compliance; beatings were used as punishment for disobedience.
- A federal grand jury returned a third superseding indictment charging Francisco Cortes-Meza, Juan Cortes-Meza, Amador Cortes-Meza, and others with a total of 34 offenses arising from the trafficking scheme.
- Francisco pleaded guilty to one count of commercial sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a).
- Juan pleaded guilty to one count of commercial sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and one count of importing an alien for immoral purposes, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1328.
- The district court calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines ranges of 135–168 months (Francisco) and 168–210 months (Juan).
- The court imposed sentences above the advisory ranges: 240 months for Francisco and, for Juan, concurrent sentences of 200 months (trafficking count) and 120 months (importation count).
- The sentencing judge did not give advance notice that above-Guidelines sentences were being considered and stated that the upward variance was warranted by the “morally outrageous nature” of the conduct and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
- Francisco and Juan appealed, arguing that the lack of advance notice of the above-Guidelines sentences was procedural error and that the sentences were unreasonable.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) (or due process) required advance notice before the district court imposed sentences above the advisory Guidelines range based on the § 3553(a) factors.
2. Whether the above-Guidelines sentences were substantively unreasonable.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
- The court held that Rule 32(h)’s notice requirement applies to Guidelines departures, not to upward variances based on § 3553(a); therefore, no advance notice was required.
- Relying on Irizarry v. United States, the court explained that, after Booker made the Guidelines advisory, defendants are on notice that a sentencing court may impose a non-Guidelines sentence based on the statutory sentencing factors.
- The court held that the district court adequately explained the reasons for varying upward—particularly the extreme exploitation and violence—and that the sentences were substantively reasonable under abuse-of-discretion review.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 32(h) requires advance notice only when a district court intends to impose a Sentencing Guidelines “departure,” not when it imposes a non-Guidelines “variance” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Under Irizarry v. United States, a sentencing court is not required to provide advance notice before imposing an above-Guidelines sentence that rests on § 3553(a) rather than a Guidelines departure provision.
- A district court may vary upward based on the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need for just punishment and deterrence, and protection of the public, so long as it explains its reasoning on the record.
- Appellate review of the substantive reasonableness of a variance is for abuse of discretion, and the reviewing court gives deference to the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors.

## Conclusion

United States v. Cortes-Meza upheld above-Guidelines sentences for members of a violent sex-trafficking scheme, holding that Rule 32(h) does not require advance notice of an upward variance based on § 3553(a) and concluding that the district court’s explanation and the extreme facts supported the sentences as reasonable.


United States v. Cortes-Meza, 411 F. App’x 284 (2011)