The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a federal criminal sentence against Joseph Acevedo in an unpublished opinion filed Feb. 5, 2026, rejecting his challenge to the district court's sentencing guidelines calculation.
Acevedo was convicted on multiple federal charges stemming from a routine traffic stop that uncovered cocaine, cash, and firearms. The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under case number 2:24-cr-14010-DLG-1.
According to court records, the criminal case began when Acevedo and Stanley Rumowski failed to properly stop at a stop sign while driving home from a meeting with their cocaine supplier. The traffic violation led to a police stop that would ultimately result in federal drug and weapons charges.
During the traffic stop, police deployed a drug-sniffing dog that alerted to the presence of narcotics in the vehicle. The subsequent search revealed significant evidence of drug trafficking activity. Officers discovered a loaded pistol in the driver's side door panel, $12,540 in cash stored in the center console, and a brick of cocaine hidden inside a beige backpack on the back seat.
The investigation expanded when Acevedo consented to a search of his cell phone. The device contained a photograph taken the same day showing two tall stacks of cash and a gun inside the same beige backpack found in the vehicle. This photographic evidence provided additional support for the prosecution's case against Acevedo.
Federal prosecutors charged Acevedo with three counts: conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession of a firearm. The charges reflect the serious nature of the alleged drug trafficking operation and the presence of weapons.
Following his conviction in district court, Acevedo appealed his sentence to the Eleventh Circuit. His appeal specifically challenged the factual findings that formed the basis for the district court's sentencing guidelines calculation. In federal criminal cases, the sentencing guidelines help determine the appropriate punishment based on factors including the nature of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, and specific circumstances of the case.
The Eleventh Circuit panel hearing the case consisted of Circuit Judges Newsom, Grant, and Brasher. The court issued a per curiam opinion, meaning the decision was issued by the court as a whole rather than authored by a single judge. The opinion was designated as "not for publication," indicating it will have limited precedential value in future cases.
In their brief opinion, the appeals court rejected Acevedo's arguments and affirmed the lower court's sentence. The court wrote that Acevedo "brings this appeal to challenge the factual findings underlying the district court's Guidelines range calculation and sentence. We affirm."
The case was placed on the court's non-argument calendar, meaning the judges decided the appeal based on written briefs without hearing oral arguments. This procedural approach is commonly used for cases where the legal issues are straightforward or well-established.
The Eleventh Circuit's affirmance represents the final resolution of Acevedo's direct appeal, though he may still have options for post-conviction relief through other legal mechanisms. The decision reflects the appellate court's deference to the district court's factual findings and sentencing decisions in federal criminal cases.
This case illustrates several important aspects of federal drug enforcement. Traffic stops remain a common source of drug trafficking discoveries, as minor violations can lead to searches that uncover larger criminal operations. The presence of large amounts of cash, drugs, and weapons together typically indicates organized drug trafficking activity rather than simple possession.
The photographic evidence found on Acevedo's phone demonstrates how modern technology often provides prosecutors with powerful evidence in criminal cases. Cell phone searches, when conducted with proper consent or legal authority, frequently yield digital evidence that supports other physical findings.
Federal sentencing in drug cases involves complex calculations under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which consider factors such as drug quantity, criminal history, and role in the offense. While the guidelines are now advisory rather than mandatory, they continue to significantly influence federal sentences.
The case also highlights the collaborative nature of drug trafficking investigations, as both Acevedo and Rumowski were apparently involved in the alleged cocaine distribution conspiracy. Federal prosecutors often pursue conspiracy charges because they allow for prosecution of all participants in a criminal enterprise, regardless of their specific roles.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision to affirm without extended analysis suggests the district court properly applied established sentencing principles and made appropriate factual findings. Such appellate deference is common in federal criminal cases where district courts have broad discretion in sentencing matters.