United States v. Joseph Anthony Cano Bonilla

── United States v. Joseph Anthony Cano Bonilla ── Case No.: 25-11039 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 26, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11039 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11039 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSEPH ANTHONY CANO BONILLA, a.k.a. Joesph Anthony Cano Bonilla, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cr-20449-KMM-1 ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Joseph Cano Bonilla pleaded guilty to distributing metham- phetamine and was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment. He USCA11 Case: 25-11039 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11039 now appeals, arguing in relevant part that the government breached the plea agreement. The government agrees with Cano Bonilla’s position, and the parties jointly move our Court for sum- mary reversal. Summary disposition is appropriate where, as relevant here, “the position of one of the parties 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). “[W]e review de novo whether the government has breached a plea agreement.” United States v. Malone, 51 F.4th 1311, 1318 (11th Cir. 2022). “[T]he government breaches a plea agree- ment when it fails to perform the promises on which the plea was based.” Id. at 1324 (citation omitted). In this case, Cano Bonilla pleaded guilty to a single-count in- dictment pursuant to a written plea agreement. As part of that agreement, the government “agree[d] to remain silent on the pu- rity of the methamphetamine,” and the parties predicted that Cano Bonilla’s advisory sentencing guideline range would be 97 to 121 months of imprisonment. However, Cano Bonilla’s presentence in- vestigation report (“PSI”) stated that he was responsible for a total of 8,854 grams of a “pure substance” of “actual methampheta- mine,” assessed a heightened offense level, and, coupled with Cano Bonilla’s criminal history category of II, calculated a guideline range of 151 to 188 months. Cano Bonilla objected to these provisions of the PSI, but, at sentencing, the district court noted that the probation officer had USCA11 Case: 25-11039 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 3 of 3 25-11039 Opinion of the Court 3 reported that a chemical analysis report “revealed that the amount of . . . pure substance . . . was 8,854 grams.” The government re- sponded that “the guidelines [were] correct and the purity and the lab report [were] correct,” so “instead of couching [its argument] in terms of an objection to the guidelines,” it was more so request- ing a downward variance. The district court ultimately adopted the PSI’s guideline calculations and imposed a within-guideline sen- tence of 151 months of imprisonment.