FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 17, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 11095 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 2 0 7 1 9 - C R - D MM 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 C A N D E L A R I O D E L A R O S A - P A D I L L A , 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

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 17, 2006) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C a nde l a r i o D e L aR os a - P a di l l aappe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e of 168 m onths of2

im p r is o n m e n t f

o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te f i ve orm or e ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne w hi l e on boa r d ave s s e l . 46 U . S . C . A pp. § 1903( a ) , (

j ) . R os a - P a di l l aa r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc l e a r l y e rr e d dur i ng s e n te n c in g w h e n it d e n ie d h im am in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n a n d th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le . W e a f

f irm . W e r evi ew the appl i ca t i on of the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes by the di stri ctcourt de novo a nd r e vi e w f

i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 7 - 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e v ie w s e n te n c e s f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . U n ite d S ta te s v . W illia m s , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 5 0 , 1 3 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s p r o v id e f o ratw o - le v e l r e d u c tio n f o ram in o rr o le f o rad e f e n d a n t “w h o is le s s c u lp ab le th a n m o s t o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts , b u t w h o s e r o le coul d n otbe desc ri bed as m i ni m al . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2, cm t . n. 5. W hether a de f e nda nti s am i norpa rt i c i pa nti s ba s e d on the c r i m i na l c onduc tf orw hi c h the de f e nda nti s he l d r e s pons i bl e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d 930, 94 0 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). In a drug o ff ense , the courtm ayno tconsi der the “ grea t er d ru g co n sp i racy” b u to n l y th e co n d u ctth atd et erm i n ed th e d efen d an t ’ s b ase o ffen se l e v e l . I d . a t9 4 2 . “ [ W] h e n ad ru g c o u r i e r ’ s r e l e v a n tc o n d u c ti s l i m i t e d t o [ h i s ] o wn ac tof i m po rt at i on , a di stri ctcourtm ayl egi t i m at el y c on cl ud e thatthe couri er pl ay ed an i m po rt antor es se nt i al rol e i n the i m po rt at i on of tho se drug s. ” I d. at3

9 4 2 - 4 3 . S im ila r ly , th e d e f e n d a n t’s c u lp ab ility is d e te rm in e d b y c o m p a r is o n w ith o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts in th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. I d . a t 9 4 4 . R o s a - P a d illaa n d s e v e r a l c o d e f e n d a n ts w e r e a rr e s te d a s th e y a tte m p te d to tr a ns por tappr oxi m a t e l y 2, 600 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne , a nd R os a - P a di l l a ’ s r e l e va nt cond uctw as l i m i t ed t o thatcargo. B ec ause evi dence w as pres ent ed thatR osaP a di l l aa s s i s t e d i n the na vi ga t i on of the boa t , r e c rui t e d a tl e a s tone othe rm e m be rof the c ons pi r a c y t o j oi n, a nd w a s i de nt i f i e d by hi s c o- c ons pi r a t or s a s the c apt a i n of the “ go fa st ” boat , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y e rri n d et erm i ni ng thatR osaP a d illad id n o t q u a lif

y f o ram in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n . W e a l so concl ud e thatR osa- P adi l l a’ s s ent ence i s r ea sonabl e. “ W e are re qu i re d ‘ t o d et erm i ne w hether the se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ctcourtw as r e a s onabl e i n the c ont e xtof the f a c t or s out l i ne d i n [ 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ] . ’ ” I d. ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . W in in g e a r , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir .2 0 0 5 ) ) . R e vi e w f orr e a s onabl e ne s s i s de f e r e nt i a l , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , a nd “ w he n the di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e s as e nt e nc e w i thi n the a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s r a n g e , w e o r d in a r ily w ill e x p e c t th a t c h o ic e to b e ar e a s o n ab le one . ” I d. T he transcr i ptof the se nt enci ng hear i ng re fl ec t s thatthe di stri ctcourt c o n s id e r e d th e s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 f a c to r s a n d th e a r g u m e n ts m a d e b y R o s a - P a d illa4

re gardi ng hi s bac kg roun d and pers on al char ac t er i st i cs . W e c anno tsay thatR osaP a d illa ’s s e n te n c e , w h ic h f a lls a t th e lo w e n d o f

th e u n d is p u te dg u id e lin e r a n g e , is u n r e a s o n ab le . T h e sen t en ce i s AF F I RME D.