United States v. Jose Carrillo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2026
• Docket: 25-10722
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-10722 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 1 of 5

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10722 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

JOSE CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:23-cr-00222-VMC-TGW-1 ____________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jose Carrillo appeals his sentence of imprisonment for con- spiracy to participate in a dogfighting venture and for being a felon USCA11 Case: 25-10722 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10722

in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §§ 49(a), 371, 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8). He contends that his prison sentence of 84 months is sub- stantively unreasonable. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND From 2017 until 2023, Carrillo operated a dogfighting ring from his residence. Wiretap evidence recorded a call where Car- rillo’s son boasted of his father's “15-fight winning streak” and so- licited a third party to host a fight at Carrillo’s home. Another wire- tap recorded Carrillo evaluating his dogs’ tactical performance, dis- paraging an injured dog for losing a fight, and complaining that she “fucking gave up” and “started acting like a straight piece of shit.” When officers arrested Carrillo, they searched his residence, which he shared with his girlfriend and ten-year-old daughter. They discovered 11 scarred dogs confined to outdoor kennels and sitting in their own feces. One dog was pregnant. The officers dis- covered a blood-stained dogfighting ring and various dogfighting paraphernalia, including skin staplers, veterinary medical supplies, break sticks, and a noose with a dog collar hanging from a tree. They discovered 15 pounds of marijuana, a loaded firearm, and am- munition for another firearm. Carrillo’s daughter reported that she witnessed the dogfights, and Carrillo admitted to purchasing drugs in her presence. He also tested positive for methamphetamine. Carrillo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to participate in a dog- fighting venture, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2156(a)(1), (b); 18 U.S.C. §§ 49(a), 371, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), USCA11 Case: 25-10722 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 3 of 5

25-10722 Opinion of the Court 3

924(a)(8). His presentence investigation report separated the con- victions into two groups with offense levels of 16 and 14, respec- tively. Relying on the higher offense level, the report added two levels for grouping, United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3D1.4 (Nov. 2023), and subtracted three levels for acceptance of the responsibility, id. § 3E1.1(a), (b), for a total offense level of 15, id. ch. 5, pt. A. Despite a prior three-year prison sentence for a her- oin sale that resulted in a fatal overdose, Carrillo received zero criminal history points and a criminal history category of I because the conviction was too old to be scored. With an offense level of 15 and a criminal history category of 1, the report calculated a guide- line sentence range of 18 to 24 months of imprisonment, well be- low the statutory maximums of 60 months of imprisonment for the conspiracy conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 49(a), and 180 months for the felon-in-possession conviction, id. § 924(a)(8). At sentencing, the district court adopted the report and heard Carrillo’s arguments regarding his mitigating evidence of substance abuse and limited education, as well as a proposed sen- tencing comparator. Decrying the “viciousness” of the offense, the district court described the venture as “pure and simple torture” and expressed nausea at “man’s inhumanity.” It stated that it had considered the statutory sentencing factors but determined that the sentencing guideline range failed to account for the extreme cru- elty of the case. It considered the presence of drugs and a loaded firearm, the exposure of Carrillo’s ten-year-old daughter to dog- fights and drug transactions, and that Carrillo had served only three years in prison for a heroin sale that resulted in a fatal overdose. It USCA11 Case: 25-10722 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 25-10722

also dismissed Carrillo’s proposed comparator and distinguished Carrillo’s conduct as “much more egregious” and exacerbated by his felon-in-possession conviction. The district court sentenced Carrillo to 84 months of imprisonment—the 60-month statutory maximum for the conspiracy, and a 60-month sentence for the felon-in-possession conviction with 24 of the months to be served consecutive to the sentence for the conspiracy—followed by three years of supervised release. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of dis- cretion. United States v. Curtin, 78 F.4th 1299, 1311 (11th Cir. 2023). A district court abuses its discretion when it “fails to afford consid- eration” to statutory sentencing factors that were “due significant weight,” “gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant fac- tor,” or “commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). III. DISCUSSION The district court did not abuse its discretion by upwardly varying from the guideline range based on the “extreme cruelty” of Carrillo’s multi-year dogfighting venture, which involved tortur- ing animals, maintaining a blood-stained dogfighting venue, and housing dogs in squalid conditions. These facts, combined with Carrillo’s drug use and history of fatal drug distribution, supported a sentence above the advisory guideline range to achieve adequate deterrence and reflect the seriousness of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2); United States v. Olson, 127 F.4th 1266, 1276 (11th Cir. USCA11 Case: 25-10722 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026 Page: 5 of 5

25-10722 Opinion of the Court 5

2025) (“A district court does not have to give all the [statutory sen- tencing] factors equal weight, and it has discretion to attach great weight to one factor over others.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court stated that it considered the statutory sentencing factors, and it heard Carrillo’s mitigating evi- dence of substance abuse and limited education before determining that the “viciousness” of the offense supported an upward variance. See United States v. Butler, 39 F.4th 1349 (11th Cir. 2022) (“A district court’s failure to discuss mitigating evidence does not indicate that the [district] court erroneously ignored or failed to consider the ev- idence.” (alteration adopted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). It also did not abuse its discretion in determining that Carrillo is not similarly situated to his comparator based on the na- ture of the offense and Carrillo’s additional firearm conviction. See United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1101-02 (11th Cir. 2009) (ex- plaining that defendants with different offenses or records are not similarly situated). IV. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM Carrillo’s sentence.