Case ID: f-appx_145/html/0652-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael Santana SERRANO-PINERO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-12694
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    D.C. Docket No. 03-20996-CR-JAL.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Aug. 22, 2005.
    
      Laura Thomas Rivero, Anne R. Schultz, Sally M. Richardson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gail M. Stage, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Hector Flores, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BIRCH, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court for consideration in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We previously affirmed Serrano-Pinero’s sentence. See United States v. Serrano-Pinero, 125 Fed.Appx. 978 (11th Cir.2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated our prior decision and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of Booker.

In his initial brief on direct appeal, Serrano-Pinero argued: (1) the district court erred in finding he was not entitled to a reduction for a mitigating role, and (2) the district court erred under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), by sentencing him for transporting “one kilogram or more” of heroin because he never admitted or stipulated to importing an exact amount of heroin. On reconsideration, we reinstate our opinion as to the mitigating role issue and consider the Booker claim only.

Because Serrano-Pinero did not raise a Blakely or Booker objection in the district court, his Booker claim should be reviewed under the plain error standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir.2005).

An appellate court may not correct an error the defendant failed to raise in the district court unless there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). We have clarified there are two types of Booker error: (1) Sixth Amendment, or constitutional, error based upon sentencing enhancements imposed under a mandatory Guidelines system neither admitted by the defendant nor submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) statutory error based upon sentencing under a mandatory Guidelines system. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1329-30 (11th Cir.2005).

There is a dispute between the parties regarding whether Serrano-Pinero admitted to the drug quantity used in his Guidelines sentence. Even assuming that Serrano-Pinero did not admit to the drug quantity, both his Booker constitutional and statutory claims fail because SerranoPinero cannot meet the third prong of the plain-error test. There is not “a reasonable probability of a different result if the [Gjuidelines had been applied in an advisory instead of binding fashion by the sentencing judge in this case.” See Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1332; Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1301. Although the district court sentenced Serrano-Pinero at the low end of his Guidelines range, that is not enough to show the district court would have imposed a different sentence under an advisory regime. See United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1361 (11th Cir.2005). There is nothing in the record indicating the district court would have imposed a different sentence if the Guidelines would have been treated as advisory. Thus, the district court did not commit Booker plain error, either constitutional or statutory, and we affirm Serrano-Pinero’s sentence.

OPINION REINSTATED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.