### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 14, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 11678 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e t N o . 0 3 - 2 0 5 8 7 - C r - G o ld U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s EDUA RDO V . SAENZ, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 14, 2006) O N R EM A N D FR O M TH E SU PR EM E C O U R T O F TH E U N I TED STA TES B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

T hi s c as e i s bef

ore us f or consi dera t i on i n l i gh tof U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . S a e n z v . U n ite d S ta te s , U .S . , 1 2 6 S . C t. 32 1 (20 05 ). W e pre vi ou sl y a ff i rm ed S ae nz’ s s ent ence and con vi ct i on . S ee U ni t ed S ta te s v . S a e n z , N o . 0 4 - 1 1 6 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . D e c . 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . F ol l ow i ng S a e nz ’ s c onvi c t i on, the pr oba t i on of f i c e rr e c om m e nde d a tw ole v e l a d ju s tm e n t to S a e n z ’s b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l. S a e n z o b

je c te d to th e f

a c tu a l b a s is f orthe a dj us tm e nta nd, a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, i ntr oduc e d e xpe r tt e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the appl i c abi l i ty of the e nha nc e m e nti n thi s c a s e . R 6 a t14- 17, 23. T he d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u n d , b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , th a t S a e n z w a s “n o t o n ly a s upe r vi s orbutw a s a n or ga ni z e ra nd l e a de r ” ba s e d on S a e nz ’ s de c i s i on- m a ki ng a uthor i ty c onc e rni ng the tr a ns a c t i on, i nc l udi ng the pr i c e of the c oc a i ne a nd the tim e s a n d p la c e s o f

th e m e e tin g s r e g a r d in g th e p u r c h a s e o f th e c o c a in e . I d . a t 8 7 . T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o not e d tha tS a e nz w a s i de nt i f i e d by one of

hi s c oc ons pi r a t or s , w hom the di s tr i c tc our tf ound c r e di bl e , a s the ow ne rof the c oc a i ne a nd tha tS a e nz di r e c t e d a nd s upe r vi s e d a tl e a s ttw o a s s oc i a t e s , one of w hom de l i ve r e d the c oc a i ne . I d. T he di s tr i c tc our tobs e r ve d tha tS a e nz ’ s w i tne s s ha d not re vi ew ed the evi dence and rej ec t ed hi s t es t i m on y a s “ spec ul at i on and con j ec ture. ” I d .3

O n appe a l , S a e nz a r gue d, i nt e ra l i a , tha tthe i m pos e d s e nt e nc i ng enhancem entas an organi ze r or l ea der w as un const i tut i on al because i tw as base d on c onduc tw hi c h ha d ne i the rbe e n s ubm i tt e d t o the j ury norpr ove n be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt , c i t i ng B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 126 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) a nd B ooke r . B e c a us e w e ha d pr e vi ous l y rul e d he l d tha tB l a ke l y di d not i m pactthe appl i ca t i on of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, w e hel d thatthe di stri ctcourt di d n otcom m i tpl ai n err or. S ae nz, sl i p. op . at20 -21. T he S up re m e C ou rtvaca t ed o u rp r io rju d g m e n t a n d r e m a n d e d f o rf u r th e rc o n s id e r a tio n in lig h t o f B o o k e r . S a e n z , U .S . a t , 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 3 2 1 . A f t e rr e m a nd, w e di r e c t e d the pa r t i e s t o f i l e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f

s pr ovi di ng u s w i th : (1 ) a d escri p t i o n o f w h en , w h ere, an d h o w th e B o o k er i ssu e w as fi rst ra i se d; and (2) any ar gu m ent s abo utw hether a nd ho w the B oo ker deci si on appl i es i n thi s c a s e a nd w ha ta c t i on s houl d be t a ke n. I n s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f i ng, S a e nz a r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc e f a l l s w i thi n both c ons t i tut i ona l a nd s t a tut ory B ooke re rr or b ec au se h is se n ten ce w as en h an ce d b as ed o n fa cts n o t su p p o rted b y th e ju ry ’s verdi ctor prov ed beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . H e m ai nt ai ns thathe w as prej ud i ce d a nd not e s tha thi s s e nt e nc e w a s a tthe bott om of the gui de l i ne r a nge a nd tha tthe di stri ctcourt ’ s f

i nd i ng s of f

ac tw er e m ade und era pre po nd er ance of the evi dence, i nst ea d o f abeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt , st andard. H e a l so cont ends thatthe di stri ct4

courtappl i ed the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a s m andat ory butcom m ent ed thati tw as doi ng s o w i th “ s om e r e l uc t a nc e ” a nd di d notr e vi e w a l l of the 18 U . S . C . § 3553 s ta tu to ry f

a c to r s . B e c a u s e S a e n z r a i s e d th e B o o k e ri s s u e f o rth e f i r s tt i m e o n ap p e a l , we r e v ie w f o rp la in e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , U. S . , 1 2 5 . S . C t . 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Un d e rp l a i n e rr o rr e v i e w, w e w ill r e v e r s e o n ly if

“th e r e is ( 1 ) e rr o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts subst ant i al ri gh t s. ” I d. T he defendantdo es no tm ee thi s burden o f s ho w i ng that th e e rr o ra f

f e c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts if w e m u s t s p e c u la te a s to h o w h e w o u ld ha ve be e n s e nt e nc e d w i thoutthe e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 408 F . 3d 745, 748- 49 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . I f the de f e nda nti s a bl e t o s how tha tthe three cond i t i on s a re m et , w e m ay exer ci se ou r di sc re t i on t o n ot i ce the “ forf ei t ed e rr o r , b u t o n ly if

( 4 ) th e e rr o rs e r io u s ly a f f e c ts th e f a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e put a t i on of

j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1298. T he r e a r e tw o ty pe s of

B ooke re rr or– ( 1) a “ c ons t i tut i ona l ” e rr orof i m pos i ng a s e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e ntba s e d upon a j udi c i a l f i ndi ng tha tgoe s be y ond the f a c t s a dm i tt e d by a de f

e nda ntorf

ound by a j ury , a nd ( 2) a “ s t a tut ory ” e rr orof i m pos i ng a s e nt e nc e unde ra m a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). U nd erB oo ker, a c on st i tut i on al5

e rr o ro c c u r s w h e n a d e f e n d a n t is s u b

je c te d to “e x tr a - v e r d ic t e n h a n c e m e n ts u s e d in a m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s s y s te m .” R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 0 . U n d e rB o o k e r , a st atut ory e rr or occurs w hen a defendanti s s ent ence d “ un der am andat ory [ g] ui de l i ne s s c he m e , e ve n i n the abs e nc e of a S i xth A m e ndm e nte nha nc e m e nt vi ol at i on . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M atheni a, 40 9 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 91 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c u r ia m ) ( q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . F o llo w in g B o o k e r , d is tr ic t c o u r ts m u s t c o n tin u e to c o n s u lt th e G u id e lin e s in fo rm u lati n g a d ef

en d an t’ s s en ten ce an d m u st co rr ec tl y c alcu late a d ef en d an t’ s G u id e lin e s s e n te n c in g r a n g e , U n ite d S ta te s v . J o r d i, 4 1 8 F .3 d 1 2 1 2 , 1 2 1 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, U . S . , 126 S . C t . 812 ( 2005) , i nc l udi ng the pr ovi s i ons a d d r e s s in g e x tr a - v e r d ic t e n h a n c e m e n ts . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 0 . A r e s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ng w oul d thus i nvol ve “ e xa c t l y the s a m e e vi de nc e pr e s e nt i ng exac t l y the sa m e f

ac tual i ss ues . . . al re ady r es ol ved” and w ou l d requi re the di stri ct court“ t o atl ea stconsi der e xact l y the sa m e gui del i ne enhancem entprov i si on s i thas a lr e a d y ap p lie d .” I d . a t 1 3 0 0 - 0 1 . S a e n z s a tis f

ie s th e f ir s t a n d s e c o n d p r o n g s o f th e p la in e rr o ra n a ly s is f o rb o th const i tut i on al and st atut ory e rr or becaus e hi s s ent ence w as enhanced, un der a m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em , base d o n fac t s notfoun d b y aj ury und era r e a s onabl e doubts t a nda r d butf ound by the di s tr i c tc our tunde ra pr e ponde r a nc e of6

the e vi de nc e s t a nda r d. T he r e i s no i ndi c a t i on i n the r e c or d, how e ve r , tha tthi s e rr or a f f e c te d th e o u tc o m e o f

S a e n z ’s s e n te n c e . T he di stri ctcourtcom m ent ed thati thad con si dere d the evi dence pres ent ed d u r in g th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g a n d d u r in g th e tr ia l. S e e R 6 a t 8 5 . I t n o te d th a t it h ad co n sid er ed th e tes ti m o n y o f S ae n z’s c o co n sp irato r, P er ez , reg ar d in g S ae n z’s offe nse c on du ctand fou nd i tcr edi bl e. Id. at87 . R evi ew i ng the l aw , the di stri ct c our tr e m a r ke d tha tS a e nz w oul d qua l i f y f ora n e nha nc e m e nta s or ga ni z e ror m anger i f he had supervi se d m er el y one ot her pers on and t hatS ae nz’ s r ol e f ar s urpa s s e d tha tthr e s hol d. I d. a t86- 87. T he c our tr e c i t e d tha tS a e nz “ ha d a l l of the d e c is io n - m a k in g a u th o r ity c o n c e rn in g [ th e c o c a in e ] tr a n s a c tio n a n d th is c o n s p ir a c y [ ], . . . s e t th e p r ic e ,” “c o n tr o lle d th e m e e tin g p la c e s a n d tim e s ,”

“ supervi se d and di re ct ed hi s a ss oci at es , ” i ncl ud i ng the i nd i vi du al w ho del i vere d the cocai ne, and t hat“ al l the tra nsac t i on s w er e c om pl et ed” “ throu gh hi m . ” I d. at 8 7 . B a s e d o n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n s id e r a tio n o f th is e v id e n c e , S a e n z is u n ab le to s a t i s f y the thi r d pr ong. S e e W i l l i a m s , 408 F . 3d a t754- 56 ( de c l i ni ng t o r e m a nd un der aB oo ker pl ai n err or anal ys i s w here the w i tness es ’ s t es t i m on y a nd the di stri ct j udge ’ s c om m e nt a ry on the e vi de nc e a nd c ons i de r a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s di d not i nd i ca t e are as on abl e probabi l i ty of adi ff er entre sul ti f the G ui del i nes had been i m pos e d i n a n a dvi s ory m a nne r ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F i e l ds , 408 F . 3d 1356, 1360De sp iteSa e nz’ s arg ument, thedis tric t c ourt ’sstate ment o f “re luc tanc e ”wa s in 1 sentenc ing Saenz to 188 m onths instead of a higher sentencealthough it believed that a higher sentenc e might have be en justified. R6 at 91. 7 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, U . S . , 126 S . C t . 221 ( 2005) ( de c l i ni ng t o r e m a nd unde ra B ooke rpl a i n e rr ora na l y s i s w he r e the e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he d the s uf f i c i e nt n u m b e ro f

s u p e r v is e e s f

o ra m a n a g e ro rs u p e r v is o re n h a n c e m e n t) . F ur the r , S a e nz c a nnots how tha the w oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d am or e l e ni e nt s e n te n c e if

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d c o n s id e r e d th e G u id e lin e s in a n a d v is o ry c ap a c ity . S ae nz w as se nt ence d t o the l ow es tse nt ence w i thi n the approp ri at e G ui del i nes s e nt e nc e r a nge of

188- 235 m onths . R 6 a t90- 91. T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tthe 188 m onth s e nt e nc e w a s “ s uf f i c i e nt l y puni t i ve ” butnot e d tha tS a e nz ’ s s ubm i s s i on o f a n u n tru th f

u l s a f e ty v a lv e s ta te m e n t ju s tif ie d a “m u c h h ig h e r ” s e n te n c e w ith in the G ui de l i ne s r a nge . I d. a t89, 90, 91. T he di s tr i c tc our te xpr e s s e d no doubtor 1 he s i t a t i on aboutthe pr opr i e ty of the i m pos e d s e nt e nc e butonl y tha ti tf e l tthe s e n te n c e to b e ap p r o p r ia te r a th e rth a n m e r e ly m a n d a te d . W ith o u t m o r e , S a e n z is no tabl e t o sho w prej ud i ce . S ee F i el ds, 40 8 F . 3d at13 61 (“ the fa ctthatthe di stri ct c our tw e nta s l ow a s i tc oul d unde rthe m a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m , w i thout m ore, i s [ t oo spec ul at i ve and i s] no tenou gh t o carry thatbu rden. ”) L a s t , S a e nz c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by f a i l i ng t o c ons i de rthe fa ct ors e nu m er at ed i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) i n cal cul at i ng hi s s ent ence . S ae nz fa i l edWe note, however, that the district cour t expressly

commented that it had c onsidered 2 punishment in sentencingSaenz. R6 at 90-91; see United States v. Robles, 408 F .3d 1324, 1328 (11 Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (“[W] e would not expect the district cour t in every caseto conduct th an ac c ountingof

e very § 3 55 3( a) f

a c tor . . . a nd e xpound up on ho w e a c h f

a c tor pla ye d a ro lein its sentencingdecision.”) 8 t o r e que s ts pe c i f

i c f i ndi ngs on the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s a ts e nt e nc i ng, s e e R 6 a t95, a nd di d notr a i s e the i s s ue i n the di s tr i c tc our tori n hi s i ni t i a l br i e f on appe a l , a nd th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s r e m a n d in s tru c tio n s d o n o t r e q u ir e u s to c o n s id e rn e w is s u e s . W e w i l l not , the r e f

or e , c ons i de ri t . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D oc ke ry , 401 F . 3d 1261, 2 1262- 63 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) , c e r t . de ni e d, U . S . , 126 S . C t . 442 (200 5). B ec ause S ae nz i s unabl e t o est abl i sh thathe w ou l d h ave r ec ei ved a l es se r s e nt e nc e i f

the gui de l i ne s ha d be e n a dvi s ory , he i s unabl e t o s how pl a i n e rr ori n the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s sen t en ce. W e, th erefo re, rei n st at e o u r p rev i o u s o p i n i o n i n th i s case a nd a f f i r m S a e nz ’ s s e nt e nc e a f t e rourr e c ons i de r a t i on i n l i ghtof B ooke r , pur s ua nt t o the S upr e m e C our t ’ s r e m a nd. OP I NI ON RE I NS T AT E D I N P AR T ; S E NT E NC E AF F I RME D.