FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 23, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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. 05- 10011 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 2 4 0 - CR - DLG 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 M A R I A P A E Z - A P O N T E , a .k .a . M a r ia A r a u

jo , 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

_________________________ ( N ove m be r23, 2005)

B efo re: T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M ar i a P ae z- A po nt e ( “ P ae z” ) app ea l s her30 -m on th sent ence for c on spi ra cy to c o m m it m o n e y la u n d e r in g , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 ( h ) . A c c o r d in g to th e P r e s e n te n c e I n v e s tig a tio n R e p o r t ( “P S I ” ) , P a e z ’s h u s b a n d w a s th e “s e c o n d in c om m a nd” of

a l a r ge m e thy l e ne di oxm e tha m phe t a m i ne ( “ M D M A ” ) s m uggl i ng c ons pi r a c y , i n w hi c h P a e z he r s e l f w a s e m pl oy e d a s a “ m one y tr a ns m i tt e r , ” w ho m a d e w ir e tr a n s f

e r s o f m o n e y to s u p p lie r s . P aez w as sen t en ced atth e sam e t i m e as tw o o f h er fem al e co -d efen d an t s, both of w hom a l s o ha d pl e d gui l ty t o be i ng “ m one y tr a ns m i tt e r s ” i n the drug conspi ra cy . T he courtgrant ed on e of them , a gi rl fr i end o f one of the ot her c o n s p ir a to r s , a m in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n , a n d , in th e c o u r s e o f d o in g s o e x p la in e d : I ’m a lw a y s c o n c e rn e d a b o u t in d iv id u a ls w h o c o m m it o f f e n s e s w h e n . .

. they have rom ant i c i nv ol vem ent[w i th a co-defe nd ant ] . I s ee a nu m ber of y ou ng l adi es w ho bu tfor bei ng i nv ol ved w i th a part i cul ar b o y f r ie n d o rh u s b a n d p r o b a b ly w o u ld n ’t h a v e c o m m itte d a c r im e . U su al l y i tev i d en ces i t sel f i n d ru g cases w h en th e yo u n g l ad y h as a qua nt i ty of

drug w hi c h e qua l s a t e n- y e a rorf i ve - y e a rm i ni m um m a nda t ory [ s e nt e nc e ] , a nd the r e ’ s f r a nkl y notm uc h the [ c ] our tc a n do i n thatre gard. T hi s c as e i s al i tt l e di ff er ent . T he gu i del i nes a re m uch l ow er . T h e c o u r t, h o w e v e r , d e n ie d P a e z ’s r e q u e s t f o ra m in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n , s ta tin g : T he a r gum e nttha tI ’ ve he a r d i n the othe rc a s e s w a s tha tthe pe r s on w a s the gi r l f

r i e nd . . . a nd di dn’ tha ve f ul l know l e dge of

a l l of the de t a i l s . . . I n thi s c a s e , y ou ha ve a gr e e d tha ts he w a s i n f a c ta w a r e of the drug l i nk a nd w a s m or e f a m i l i a rw i th the da y - t o- da y ope r a t i on a nd h a d m o r e k n o w le d g e o f th e c r im in a l a c ts a n d th e r e f o r e is s u b

je c t to m ore of asa nct i on because of thatov er al l kn ow l edge.By failingto argue, in her

brief, that the district court committed constitutional error , 1 Paez has aba

ndoned this issue, and wewill not address it. See United States v. F ord, 270 F .3d 1346, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001) (notingour “w ell established rule. . . that issues and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are deemed aba ndoned”) . Moreover, even if we w ereto addre ss the iss ue , n o c on sti tution al pl ain error oc c ur re d b e c a us ePa e z ad

mitte d toall o f t

hefac ts u se d to enhanc e her

sentenc e. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). Pa e z’s du eproc e ss a

rgument i s f

ore c los e d b y

our de c isi on

in t heRod ri gue z ca sea s w e ll as all of our

many post-Rodrigue z decisions affirmingpre- Booker sentenc es bec ause of the 3 P a e z c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d, i n l i ghtof U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1(20 05 ), by se nt enci ng her un der am andat ory gui del i nes s chem e, and argues thathad t he gu i del i nes bee n a dvi s ory the di s tr i c tc our tl i ke l y w oul d ha ve s e nt e nc e d he rm or e l e ni e nt l y . S he poi nt s outtha tthe c our t : ( 1) e xpr e s s e d c onc e rn a bouts e nt e nc i ng i ndi vi dua l s w ho c o m m it c r im e s b e c a u s e o f th e irr o m a n tic in v o lv e m e n ts w ith m o r e c u lp a b le defe nd ant s; and (2) m i gh thave consi dere d m ore m i t i gat i ng evi dence und eran a dvi s ory s c he m e , s uc h a s the f a c t s tha tP a e z r e c e nt l y ha d gi ve n bi r th t o a c hi l d a nd w ou l d n othave been i nv ol ved i n the conspi ra cybu tfor herhu sband. S he no t es th a t , w h e n i ts e n t e n c e d h e r , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i d n o tc o n s i d e rth e 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors i n rel at i on t o h erse nt ence as a w ho l e, as i s now re qu i re d aft er B ooke r . F i na l l y , s he c ont e nds tha t , be c a us e the r e m e dy di c t a t e d i n B ooke rw a s not f or e s e e a bl e , appl y i ng the B ooke rr e m e dy a f t e rs he w a s s e nt e nc e d vi ol a t e d he rdue p r o c e s s r ig h ts , b e c a u s e s h e w o u ld h a v e “ap p r o a c h e d h e rs e n te n c in g . . . d if f e r e n tly if s h e c o u ld h a v e h a d th e b e n e f it o f B o o k e r .” 1failureof the de fenda nt to make a timely

objection in the district court a nd inability

to meet the third -p ro ngof

theplain error

te st. Unite d St ate s v . Ro drigue z, 3 98 F .3 d 1 29 1 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; se e , e .g ., Unite d St ate s v . T aylor , 4 17 F .3 d 1 17 6 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; Unit e d St ate s v . Ca rt wright, 413 F.3d 1295 ( 11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Camacho-I barquen, 410 F.3d 1307 ( 11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Fie lds, 408 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. B urg e, 407 F .3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2005); cf

. United States v. Dunca

n, 400 F.3d 1297, 1306–08 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (retroac tive application of theBooker remedial provisions does not deprivea def endant of due proce ss). 4 B ec ause P ae z f

ai l ed t o l od ge an obj ec t i on t o h erse nt ence on B oo ker- re l at ed grou nd s i n the di stri ctcourt , w e w i l l re vi ew thi s i ss ue on l y f or pl ai n err or. S ee Un i t e d S t a t e s v . C a m a c h o - I b a r q u e n , 4 1 0 F . 3 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . “ An appel l at e c ou rtm ay no tcorr ec tan error the defendantfa i l ed t o rai se i n the di stri ct courtun l es s there i s: (1) e rr or, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al r ig h ts . I f a ll th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t, a n ap p e lla te c o u r t m a y th e n e x e r c is e its di s c r e t i on t o not i c e a f

or f e i t e d e rr or , butonl y i f

( 4) the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I d. (i nt ernal q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . In B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe m andat ory nature of the fe dera l se nt enci ng gu i del i nes c ou pl ed w i th the use of e xtra -ver di ctenhancem ent s r endered the gui de l i ne s i nc om pa t i bl e w i th the S i xth A m e ndm e nt ’ s gua r a nt e e of a r i ghtt o a j ury tri al . B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . at___, 12 5 S . C t . at74 9-51 . T he C ou rtrul ed that se nt enci ng court s never thel es s m ustconsi der the gu i del i nes i n an adv i sory m anner, a s w e l l a s the f

a c t or s s e tf

or th i n § 3553( a ) , w he n i m pos i ng s e nt e nc e s . I d. a t___,5

125 S . C t . a t765. U nde r§ 3553( a ) , s e nt e nc i ng s houl d t a ke i nt o a c c ount , a m ong othe rthi ngs , the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , the hi s t or y a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of

the de f e nda nt , the ne e d f

ora de qua t e de t e rr e nc e , pr ot e c t i on of the p u b lic , th e p e r tin e n t S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n p o lic y s ta te m e n ts , a n d th e n e e d to avoi d u nw arra nt ed se nt enci ng di spar i t i es . S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . I n 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 ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. de ni e d 125 S . C t . 2935 ( 2005) , w e he l d tha tunde rB ooke r , “ the S i xth A m e ndm e nt r i g h tt o tr i a l b y j u ry i s v i o l a t e d w h e r e u n d e ra ma n d a t o ry g u i d e l i n e s s y s t e m a s e nt e nc e i s i nc r e a s e d be c a us e of a n e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on f a c t s f ound by the j udge thatw er e nei ther a dm i tt ed by the defendantno r f ou nd by the j ury. ” W e have s i nce he l d tha tthe r e a r e tw o ty pe s of B ooke re rr or s : ( 1) c ons t i tut i ona l e rr orr e s ul t i ng f r om e nha nc e m e nt s ba s e d on j udi c i a l f a c t - f i ndi ng, a nd ( 2) s t a tut ory e rr orr e s ul t i ng f r om m a nda t ory appl i c a t i on of the gui de l i ne s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). A cc ordi ng l y, error thati s pl ai n exi st s w here a di stri ctcourtappl i es extra -ver di ctenhancem ent s a nd i m po se s ase nt ence af t er tr e a tin g th e g u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry . I d . W e f u r th e rh e ld in R o d r ig u e z th a t, in o r d e rto e s tab lis h th e e rr o ra f f e c te d h is s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s , th e th i r d p r o n g o f p l a i n e rr o rs h o wi n g , a d e f e n d a n tm u s ts h o w “a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility o f a d if f e r e n t r e s u lt if

th e g u id e lin e s h a d b e e n ap p lie d in6

an advi sory i nst ea d o f bi nd i ng fa shi on by the se nt enci ng j ud ge i n thi s c as e. ” R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1301. W he r e “ [ t ] he r e c or d pr ovi de s no r e a s on t o be l i e ve a n y r e s u lt is m o r e lik e ly th a n th e o th e r ,” a d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t p r e v a il u n d e rp la in e rr o rr e v ie w . I d . T h a t is th e s itu a tio n in th is c a s e . W hi l e the di s tr i c tc our tdi d gr a nta c o- de f e nda nta r ol e r e duc t i on be c a us e s he w as a gi rl fr i end o f one of the ri ng l ea ders , the courtw as ca re ful t o d i st i ng ui sh that s itu a tio n f

r o m P a e z ’s , w h o w a s m a rr ie d to o n e o f th e m a le c o - c o n s p ir a to r s . W h ile as ki ng for am i no r r ol e r educt i on , coun se l for P ae z a ckno w l edged t hather

“ s i tua t i on w a s a l i tt l e di f f e r e nt . S he w a s m a rr i e d t o M r . A r a uj o, a nd be c a us e of thatof course her kno w l edge of w hatw as go i ng on w as consi dere d t o b e m ore ext ensi ve, so she i s— w e’ re no tobj ec t i ng t o the si x-l evel i ncre as e f or her u n d e r s ta n d in g th a t th is w a s c o m in g f r o m d ru g s .” C o u n s e l m a d e it c le a rth a t h is r e que s tf orl e ni e nttr e a tm e ntw a s ba s e d s ol e l y on the f a c ttha tP a e z w a s a w i f

e , a nd a s s uc h “ s he r e a l l y w a s unde ra— m or e of a n obl i ga t i on t o do w ha ti tw a s tha ts he w a s to ld to d o .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s w a s f a rf r o m s y m p a th e tic to th a t p o s itio n . R e s p o n d in g to the i dea thatw i ves s ho ul d b e tre at ed m ore l eni ent l y than t hei r husband s, the court s a id : W hy i s that ? T he ar gu m entthatI’ ve heard i n the ot her c as es w as that the pe r s on w a s the gi r l f r i e nd, s o t o s pe a k, a nd di dn’ tha ve f ul l know l e dge of7

a ll th e d e ta ils , d id n ’t k n o w a b o u t th e in v o lv e m e n t o f d ru g s , e t c e te r a . I n thi s c a s e , y ou ha ve a gr e e d tha ts he w a s i n f a c ta w a r e of

the drug l i nk and w as m ore f

am i l i arw i th the day- t o-day operat i on and h ad m ore know l e dge of

the c r i m i na l a c t s a nd the r e f or e i s s ubj e c tt o m or e of a s a nc t i on b e c a u s e o f

th a t o v e r a ll k n o w le d g e . T he gove rnm e ntbol s t e r e d the c our t ’ s pos i t i on by poi nt i ng outf a c t s s how i ng how i nv ol ved P ae z w as i n the drug tra ff i cki ng and m on ey l aund er i ng . C ou nsel for P ae z t ol d the c our t“ w e ’ r e notdi s put i ng thos e f a c t s , ” buta r gue d tha t“ he rpos i t i on a s the w if e m a d e h e rm o r e s u s c e p tib le to b e in g to ld to d o th e s e th in g s .” T he di stri ctcourtnever expres se d any sy m pathy for the ar gu m entthatw i ves w ho engage i n d rug t ra ff i cki ng and m on ey l aund er i ng cr i m es shou l d rec ei ve m ore le n ie n t tr e a tm e n t o n th e th e o ry th a t w iv e s o b e y th e irh u s b a n d s . T h e r e is n o th in g in th e r e c o r d to in d ic a te th a t b u t f o rth e g u id e lin e s b e in g m a n d a to ry th e c o u r t w o u ld h a v e g iv e n P a e z a lo w e rs e n te n c e . N or i s there anythi ng i n the re cord t o i nd i ca t e thatbu tfor the m andat ory na tur e of the gui de l i ne s a tthe t i m e the c our tw oul d ha ve gi ve n he ra m or e l e ni e nt s e nt e nc e be c a us e s he r e c e nt l y ha d gi ve n bi r th. T ha tf a c tw a s notm e nt i one d i n the s e nt e nc e he a r i ng ori n the P S I . P a e z ha s f a i l e d t o c a rry he rbur de n of s how i ng p la in e rr o rth ir d - p r o n g p r e ju d ic e . AF F I RME D.