United States v. Cristian Rodriguez Labour

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 24-12045
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-12045 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 03/03/2026 Page: 1 of 5

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12045 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

CRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ LABOUR, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:24-cr-00027-CEM-EJK-1 ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 24-12045 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 03/03/2026 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12045

Cristian Labour appeals his sentence of 84 months of impris- onment for conspiring to commit money laundering. He chal- lenges the district court’s reliance on intended loss and the substan- tive reasonableness of his sentence. Because our precedent fore- closes Labour’s procedural challenge and the district court reason- ably exercised its sentencing discretion, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND From 2021 to 2022, Labour orchestrated a sophisticated money laundering conspiracy in which he and other conspirators compromised computer systems and email accounts to defraud businesses. He recruited and supervised multiple conspirators and directed them to incorporate shell companies and open fraudulent bank accounts to receive illicit wire transfers. Under his direction, the conspirators laundered the proceeds by routing funds to off- shore accounts in China and by making structured cash withdraw- als to avoid detection. The conspiracy involved more than $3.6 mil- lion in intended loss and $2.5 million in actual loss. An information charged Labour with conspiring to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (h), and he pleaded guilty. His presentence investigation report calculated a base of- fense level of 26, United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2S1.1 (Nov. 2023), based on an 18-level enhancement because the offense involved an intended loss greater than $3.5 million, id. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J), a two-level enhancement because he was con- victed under section 1956, id. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B), a two-level enhance- USCA11 Case: 24-12045 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 03/03/2026 Page: 3 of 5

24-12045 Opinion of the Court 3

ment because the offense involved fictitious entities, shell corpora- tions, and offshore financial accounts, id. § 2S1.1(b)(3), a three-level enhancement because Labour “recruited, managed, and super- vised” more than five conspirators, id. § 3B1.1(b), and a three-level reduction for acceptance of the responsibility, id. § 3E1.1(a), (b), for a total offense level of 30, id. ch. 5, pt. A, cmt. n.2. The report cal- culated a criminal history category of II based on three criminal history points from a prior Florida conviction for aggravated bat- tery with a deadly weapon. With an offense level of 30 and a crim- inal history category of II, Labour’s guideline range was 108 to 135 months of imprisonment. The statutory maximum was 240 months of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). The gov- ernment moved for a downward departure of five levels from La- bour’s offense level of 30 based on his substantial assistance with cases against his conspirators. See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. At sentencing, the district court overruled Labour’s objec- tion to the intended-loss amount. It granted the government’s mo- tion for a downward departure and calculated an offense level of 25, with a revised guideline range of 63 to 78 months of imprison- ment. After considering the advisory guideline range and the stat- utory sentencing factors, the district court varied upward by six months and sentenced Labour to 84 months of imprisonment, fol- lowed by two years of supervised release. The district court described the irreparable financial harm that Labour had caused his victims, his criminal history, and his re- USCA11 Case: 24-12045 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 03/03/2026 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 24-12045

cruitment of conspirators. It explained that many of Labour’s vic- tims would receive only “pennies on the dollar.” It also explained that he had orchestrated the conspiracy while on probation for a state offense and that his sentence from that offense had not been “enough to keep [him] on the straight and narrow.” And it ex- plained that Labour was no “hero” for assisting the government with its cases against his conspirators because he was the one who brought them into the conspiracy. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Several standards govern our review. We review the inter- pretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and findings of fact for clear error. See United States v. Barry, 163 F.4th 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2026). We review the reasonableness of a sen- tence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Touray, 151 F.4th 1317, 1326 (11th Cir. 2025). A district court abuses its discretion when it “fails to afford consideration” to statutory sentencing factors that were “due significant weight,” “gives significant weight to an im- proper or irrelevant factor,” or “commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” Id. at 1332–33 (citation and in- ternal quotation marks omitted). III. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion into two parts. First, we explain that our precedent forecloses Labour’s procedural challenge. Sec- ond, we explain that his sentence is substantively reasonable. USCA11 Case: 24-12045 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 03/03/2026 Page: 5 of 5

24-12045 Opinion of the Court 5

A. Our Precedent Forecloses Labour’s Procedural Challenge. Labour challenges the reliance on intended loss in calculat- ing his guideline range, but he concedes that our precedent fore- closes his challenge. In United States v. Horn, 129 F.4th 1275, 1300 (11th Cir. 2025), we held that section 2B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines requires district courts to consider both actual and in- tended loss and to apply the greater of the two. The district court applied the intended loss—the greater loss amount—when calcu- lating Labour’s advisory guideline range. Our precedent forecloses Labour’s procedural challenge. B. Labour’s Sentence is Substantively Reasonable. Labour argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. But we disagree. The district court did not abuse its discretion. It reasonably considered Labour’s criminal his- tory, the nature of the offense, and the need for deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It explained that the irreparable financial harm La- bour caused would result in victims recovering only “pennies on the dollar” and that Labour was no “hero” for assisting the govern- ment because he recruited his other conspirators, which together suffices to explain why the upward variance was reasonable. See Touray, 151 F.4th at 1332–33. And Labour’s 84-month sentence is well below the 240-month statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i); United States v. Sotelo, 130 F.4th 1229, 1245 (11th Cir. 2025). Labour’s sentence is substantively reasonable. IV. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM Labour’s sentence.