F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 21 , 2 007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1190 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D . C. D oc ke t N o. 05- 0041 3- CR -T -2 4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us POMPI LIO DELGA DO-MINA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(M ar ch 21, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN Aand H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant P om

pil io D el ga do- Mi naappe al s hi s 13 5- m onth se nte nc e im

pose d a ft er

he ple d gu ilty

to (1 ) poss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibu teAf

t er De l gad o -M i n a i n fo rm edth e di s tri ctco urtth ath e w as n o tp ro ce ed i n g wi thh i s m i t i gat i n g1 role objec t i o n , th e d i s tri ctco urtj u d ge a d dre s s edDe l gad o -M i n a’ s l aw y er , stating “ [y]ou had indicated you wer e not g oing to pur sue a minor r ole objection, but Iassume you still are askingthat [Delga doMina] be sentenc ed outside of the advisory guidelines? ” About the mitigating -r o l e o b j ection, De lg a do -M ina ’s lawye r r e pli e d, “ we did con si der pe rh a ps a min or ro le , b ut h is r ole wa s, in a ll candor , . . . just li ke eve ryone else , quite fra nkly .” 2 fi ve kil ogr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne w hil e ab oard

ave sse l su

bj ec t t o th e j ur isd ic tio n of the U nit ed

S ta te s, in vio la tio n of

46 App. U . S. C. § 19 03( a) , ( g) ; 18 U . S. C. § 2; an d 21 U . S. C. § 96 0( b) (1 )( B) (i i) ; and ( 2) c onsp ir ac y to poss es s w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te f

ive kil ogr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne w hil e ab oard

a ve sse l su bj ec t t o th e j ur isd ic tio n of

the U nit ed

S ta te s, in vio la tio n of

46 App. U . S. C. § 19 03( a) , ( g) , and (j); an d 2 1 U.S.C. § 96 0( b) (1 )(B) (ii ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we a f f i rm. W e fi rs t a ddr es s D el ga do- Mi na ’ s c ont en tio n th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in deny ing hi m

a m itigatin g-role re duction pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 3B1.2. Before sentencing, De lgado-Mina filed a sentencing m em orandum in which he ar gued that, be ca use his r ole in the dr

ug s m uggl ing ope ratio n w as m ini m al or m ino r, he w as e nti tle d to ar ed

uc tio n inhis of

fe nse le ve l un de r U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2. B ut at hi s se nte nc ing he ar ing , D el ga do- Mi nainf orm ed the dis tr ic t c ourt tha t he w as not goi ng t o pr oc ee d onthi s c la im ; and the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c onsi de r D el ga doMi na ’ s e ar lie r m iti ga tin g- ro le obj ec tio n. 1Even if we did consider Delg ado-Mina’ s mitigating -role argument for plain e rror , his argument 2 would fail. Unde r a pla in-err or ana ly sis, the defe ndant m ust establish (1) e rror , (2) that is plain, (3) that aff ects substantial rights, and (4) that seriously aff ects the fairne ss, integ rity , or public re putation of judicial proce eding s. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir.), c ert. de nied, 125 S.Ct . 2935 (2005). In this case, De lga do-Mina’s se ntence was ba sed only on the re levant conduct f or which he was h el d ac co u ntable at se ntencing : the 5,443 kilogr ams of coc aine se ized from the dr

ugsmugg ling boat on which he was traveling . See United States v. De Varon, 175 F .3d 93 0, 94 0 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 9) (e n b anc ) ( e xpla ini ngthat th e fi rs t e le me nt a se nte nc ingc ourt

sh ou ld consider when dete rmining a defe ndant’s role in an offe nse is “the de fenda nt’s role in the re levant c on du c t f or wh ic h [he] ha s b e e n h e ld a c c ounta ble at se nte nc ing ” ). An d D e lg a do -M ina ha s f a ile d to show that he was “less culpable than most other participa nts in [hi s] re levant conduc t.” I d. at 944. Th e re fo re , s e nte nc ingDe lg a do -M ina wi tho ut a

pp lyinga mit ig atin g -r ole a dju stm e nt w a s n ot p la in err or. 3 If ade fe ndant r ai se s - - an d th enkno w ing ly w ith dr aw s - - anobj ec tio n to his sentence, we consider the objection wa ived and will not review it on appeal. See U nit ed S ta te s v. Ma ste rs , 118 F . 3d 1 524, 152 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) ( re fu sin g to appl y pla in e rr or

r ev ie ww he re de fe ndant w ith dr ewobj ec tio n a t se nte nc ing de spi te defendant’ s awareness that the district court had comm itted error) ; see also United St at es v. O lano, 113 S . Ct . 177 0, 177 7 ( 1993 ) (e xpl ai nin g th at , in cr im ina l c as es , plain error r eview e xtends to forfe ited errors, wher e defe ndant fails to m ake a tim el y obj ec tio n, but

not to w ai ve d e rr or s, w he re de fe ndant i nte nti ona lly re lin qui she s or

abandon s akno w n r igh t) . H er e, D el ga do- Mi naha s w ai ve d hi s ch al le nge to the de nia l of am iti ga tin g- ro le r ed

uc tio n; and w e do n ot c onsi de r thi s iss ue on a ppe al . 2 W e tur n to D el ga do- Mi na ’ s arg um en t tha t hi s se nte nc e w as unr ea sona ble unde r the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n inU nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . 7384

(2 005) . H e co nte nds that, in de te rm ini ng h is s en te nc e, the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have c onsi de re d th at

he is “ anund er ed

uc at ed 46- y ear old

m anw ho h as spe nt h is en tir e lif e as ac ook ab oard

f ish ing ve sse ls. ” D el ga do- Mi naa lso a sse rt s th at , althoug h he learned before leaving Colom bia that the sm

uggl ing bo at w as i n v o l v edi n s u s p i ci o u s ac t i v i ty, he s t ayedo nth e b o at t o av o i dri s k i n g h i s fa m i l y’ s sa fet y . D el ga do- Mi naw as se nte nc ed a ft er the S upr em e Co urt i ssu ed it s de ci sio n in Booker; so we r eview his sentence f or rea sonablen ess in the ligh t of the fac tors set out in 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) . U nit ed S ta te s v. W ini nge ar , 422 F . 3d 1 241, 124 4- 46 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) . Unde r se ct ion355 3( a) , adis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r, a m ong oth er thi ngs, the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse , the his tor

y and ch ar ac te ri sti cs of

the de fe ndant, the ne ed

f or a de quate de te rr en ce and p ro te ct ionof the pub lic , pol ic y

state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the m ed ic al and e duc at ion al ne ed s of the de fe ndant, and the ne ed to av oid un warra nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 )-(7 ). W e conclude that Delgado-Mina’ s sentence wa s reasonable. The district co urt c or re ct ly c al cu la te d hi s Guid el ine s im pr iso nm en t r an ge a s 13 5 to 168 m on th s; an d t he co ur t s en te nc edDelg ad o- Mi na to th e lo wes t p oi nt of t ha t ra ng e. See United States v. Ta lley , 431 F. 3d 78 4, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (noting thatTh e g ov e rnme nt c onte nd s th at D e lg a do -M ina ’s fa ilure to a rgue be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt that hi s 3 sentenc e wa s unrea sonable indi cate s that, instead of r eviewinghis sentence for r easona bleness, we should review D elg ado-Mina’ s challeng e on appe al to the re asonable ness of his sentenc e only for plain err or. We nee d not decide this issue beca use De lga do-Mina’s c laim that his sentence w as unrea sonable fa ils under either standard of

revie w. 5 “ or din ar ily

w e w oul d e xpe ct

ase nte nc e w ith in the G uid el ine s r an ge to be reas on ab le ”). Ina ddi tio n, in se nte nc ing D el ga do- Mi na , the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th e se ct ion 3553 (a ) fa ct or s, c om

m en tin g inpart ic ular on the larg e quanti ty of c oc ai ne invo lved in th is case. T he district court judge also explained that she cons idered specifically

the nature and circ um stances of D elgado-Mina’ s offense; his histo ry an d c hara ct er ist ic s; and the ne ed to pr ovi de a de quate de te rr en ce , pr ote ct the publ ic , and r ef

le ct the se ri ousn es s of

his of fe nse . T he dis tr ic t c ourt j udge w as not required to discuss all of the section 3553 (a) factors at the sentencing h earing. See United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 132 4, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (e xplaini ng that

“ noth ing in Booker or elsewhere r equires the district court to state on th e re cord that i t ha s e xpl ic itl y

c onsi de re d e ac h of

the [ se ct ion ] 355 3( a) f

ac tor s or to dis cu ss ea chof the [ se ct ion ] 355 3( a) f

ac tor s” ). A nd n oth ing in the r ec or d c onvi nc es us that Delgado-Mina’ s sentence wa s unreasonable in th e light of the section 35 53(a) fa ct or s. 3 AFFIR MED.6