USA v. Thomas Antonio Stuart, No. 23-11760 (11th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 23-11760 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 03/04/2024 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11760 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plainti -Appellee, versus THOMAS ANTONIO STUART, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-20064-RNS-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-11760 2 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 03/04/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 23-11760 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Thomas Stuart appeals his sentence of 60 months of imprisonment imposed after he pleaded guilty to three counts of bringing an alien to the United States for commercial and private financial gain. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). He argues that the five-year mandatory minimum did not apply to him because he was a first-time offender. The United States moves for a summary affirmance. Because “the position of [the United States] . . . is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), we grant that motion and affirm. Section 1324(a)(2) provides a mandatory-minimum sentence of three years of imprisonment for “a rst or second violation of subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii),” and it provides a mandatory-minimum sentence of ve years “for any other violation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2). In Ortega-Torres, we held that an o ender commits a separate violation for each alien brought to the United States for commercial or nancial gain. United States v. Ortega-Torres, 174 F.3d 1199, 1201 (11th Cir. 1999). Ortega-Torres controls. Stuart pleaded guilty to violating section 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) three times by smuggling three aliens into the United States for nancial gain. Each alien counted as a separate violation, id., so Stuart was subject to the ve-year mandatory USCA11 Case: 23-11760 Document: 31-1 23-11760 Date Filed: 03/04/2024 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 minimum on his third count of conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2). Stuart disagrees with our decision in Ortega-Torres, but that precedent controls our resolution of this issue. See United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008). Because the position of the United States is clearly correct as a matter of law, we grant the motion for summary a rmance. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
