### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 29, 2005 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. 05- 12488 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 2 0 6 - C R - OR L - 2 8 - J GG 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 R M E L O M I R A N D A V I L L A L O B O S , a .k .a . J o s e L u is G a r c ia , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 29, 2005) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Although Villalobos’s indictment set forth the 20-year penalty provision under 1 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) f

or aliens “whose removal was subsequent to a conviction for c ommissi on of an ag gravated fe lony ,” it did not specifically alleg e that Villalobos was removed subsequent to beingconvicted of

an aggravated fe lony . 2 C a rm e lo M ir a n d aV illa lo b o s ap p e a ls h is 5 7 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o ru n la w f

u l r e - e ntry a f

t e rde por t a t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326( a ) & ( b) ( 2) . V i l l a l obos a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t 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 h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s in s e nt e nc i ng hi m vi ol a t e d hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s , i n l i ghtof th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s de c i s i ons i n B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2004) , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , a nd S he pa r d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , ___ U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 1254, 161 L . E d. 2d 205 ( 2005) . V i l l a l obos a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n r e f us i ng t o d epartdo w nw ar ds four l evel s, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 5 K 3. 1. F or the re as on s s et f o r th m o r e f

u lly b e lo w , w e a f

f irm . A fe dera l grand j ury c harged V i l l al ob os w i th o ne coun tof un l aw ful re -e ntry af t erdepo rt at i on , i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) and (b)(2). V i l l al ob os pl ed 1 gu i l ty t o thi s off

ense , w i tho utthe benefi tof a pl eaagre em ent . D uri ng hi s pl ea c o llo q u y , V illa lo b o s d id n o t a d m it to h a v in g a n y p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . T h e p resen t en ce i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt(“ P S I”) setV i l l al o b o s’ s b ase o ffen se l ev el atei g h t , p u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 (a). T h e P S I i n creased th i s o ffen se le v e l b y 1 6 le v e ls , p u r s u a n t to § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) , b e c au s e V illa lo b o s p r e v io u s lySection 5K3.1 of the United States SentencingGuidelines provides that, “[u] pon 2 motion of the[g ]overnment, thec ourt may depa rt do wnwa rd no t mo retha

n 4leve ls pur su ant to an ea rly dispositi on program a

uthorized by

the Attorney

General of theUnited States and the United States Attorney

for the district in which thecourt re sides.” U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. 3 w a s d e p o r te d a f

te rac o n v ic tio n f

o raf e lo n y c r im e o f

v io le n c e , th a t is , s ta te conv i ct i on s f

or bu rgl ary of ahabi t at i on and sexual as saul t . B as ed on a t ot al of f e ns e l e ve l of

21 a nd ac r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of I I I , V i l l a l obos ’ s gui de l i ne r a n g e w a s 4 6 to 5 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. V illa lo b o s r e q u e s te d e ith e raf o u r - le v e l d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 K 3 .1 , b a s e d o n th e d is p a r ity b e tw e e n ille g a l r e - e n try d e f e n d a n ts in 2 F l or i daa nd s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d de f e nda nt s i n s outhw e s t e rn- bor de rs t a t e s tha tha ve earl y d i sp o si t i o n p ro g ram s, o r a d ep artu re, p u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 5 K 2 . 0 , b ecau se h is c a s e f

e ll o u ts id e th e h e a r tla n d o f c a s e s in v o lv in g § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) e nha nc e m e nt s . V i l l a l obos a l s o r a i s e d c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s t o the re co m m en d ed § 2 L 1 .2 (b )( 1 )( A )( ii ) e n h an ce m en t, as w ell as to th e c o u rt’s c a l c ul a t i on of

hi s c r i m i na l - hi s t ory poi nt s , pur s ua ntt o B l a ke l y a nd B ooke r , a r gui ng that : (1) hi s pri or conv i ct i on s nei ther w er e c harged i n h i s i nd i ctm ent , no r s t i pu l at ed t o d uri ng hi s pl eacol l oq uy; and (2) the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n A l m endarez T o rr e s v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 , 1 1 8 S .C t. 1 2 1 9 , 1 4 0 L .E d .2 d 3 5 0 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , d id n o t ap p ly to ac o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e to th e ap p lic a tio n o f § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) .4

T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponde d tha tadi s c r e t i ona ry § 5K 3. 1 de pa r tur e w a s not w a rr a nt e d be c aus e the M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i dadi d notha ve a n e a r l y di s pos i t i on p r o g r a m , a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d n o t r e c e iv e d ab e n e f it f r o m a n e a r ly d is p o s itio n . T he gove rnm e nta l s o a r gue d tha t , t o the e xt e nttha tV i l l a l obos w a s r a i s i ng c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s t o hi s s e nt e nc e , the s e c ha l l e nge s w e r e f or e c l os e d by A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s . O n A pr i l 18, 2005, a ts e nt e nc i ng, V i l l a l obos r e i t e r a t e d hi s obj e c t i ons t o the u s e o f h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s in c a lc u la tin g h is c r im in a l- h is to ry p o in ts a n d in appl y i ng the § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) e nha nc e m e nt , a r gui ng tha tthe c our t , i ns t e a d, sh o u l d sen t en ce h i m b ased o n l y o n h i s o ffen se l ev el o f ei g h t . V i l l al o b o s al so r e i t e r a t e d hi s m ot i ons f

orde pa r tur e unde r§ 5K 3. 1 a nd § 5K 2. 0. T he gove rnm e nt r e s ponde d by s ubm i tt i ng c e r t i f i e d c opi e s of

the j udgm e nt s of

c onvi c t i on f

orthe c onvi c t i ons a ti s s ue , a l ong w i th t e s t i m ony by af i nge rpr i nte xpe r ttha tV i l l a l obos w a s th e p e r s o n c o n v ic te d o f th e s e o f f e n s e s . T he di stri ctcourtsum m ar i l y deni ed V i l l al ob os’ s c on st i tut i on al chal l enges an d co n cl u d ed th ath i s resu l t i n g g u i d el i n e ran g e w as 4 6 t o 5 7 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t. T h e c o u r t a ls o d e n ie d V illa lo b o s ’s m o tio n s to d e p a r t f r o m th is r a nge , e xpl a i ni ng both tha tno c r i m i na l de f e nda nti s e nt i t l e d t o e a r l y di s pos i t i on and thatV i l l al ob os, un l i ke other defe nd ant s t o w ho m the courthad g ra nt edIn Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that, “ [o] ther than thefac t of a prior conviction, 3 any fac t that increa ses the penalty for a crime beyond the pre scribed statutory maxi mum mustbe submitt ed to a jury, and prove d beyond a re asonabledoubt.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct . at 2362-63. 5 § 5K 3. 1 de pa r tur e s , di d notde s e rve the de pa r tur e . A f t e rthe c our tc ons i de r e d the se nt enci ng fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3, i ncl ud i ng V i l l al ob os’ s di sc re t i on ary gu i del i ne ra ng e, i tconcl ud ed thata s ent ence w i thi n thi s gui del i ne ra ng e w as ap p r o p r ia te . T h e c o u r t s e n te n c e d V illa lo b o s to 5 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A s d is c u s s e d ab o v e , V illa lo b o s is a r g u in g o n ap p e a l th a t h is s e n te n c e is un const i tut i on al because he w as se nt ence d b as ed on pri or conv i ct i on s thatnei ther w e r e c h a r g e d in h is in d ic tm e n t, n o ra d m itte d b y h im d u r in g h is p le ac o llo q u y . V illa lo b o s c o n c e d e s th a t w e h a v e d e te rm in e d th a t th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s h o ld in g in A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s , tha ti s , tha tthe gove rnm e nti s notr e qui r e d t o c ha r ge pr i or c o n v ic tio n s in a n in d ic tm e n t, r e m a in s th e la w u n til th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o v e rru le s it. V illa lo b o s c o n te n d s , h o w e v e r , th a t A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s h a s b e e n “g r a v e ly w ounde d” by s ubs e que ntopi ni ons by am a j or i ty of the S upr e m e C our ti n A ppr e ndi v . N e w J e r s e y , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 , 1 2 0 S .C t. 2 3 4 8 , 1 4 7 L .E d .2 d 4 3 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d its 3 pr oge ny . A l t e rna t i ve l y , V i l l a l obos a r gue s tha tA l m e nda r e z - T orr e s i s not appl i cabl e bec ause , un l i ke the defendantthere , he di d n otst i pu l at e t o the exi st ence of a ny pr i orc onvi c t i ons . C i t i ng t o the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n S he pha r d, V i l l a l obos a l s o a r gue s tha tA l m e nda r e z - T orr e s i s notappl i c abl e be c aus e he di d not6

st i pu l at e t o the chara ct er i za t i on of hi s pri or conv i ct i on s f or bu rgl ary a nd se xu al as saul tas a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence . ” B e c au s e V illa lo b o s r a is e d h is c o n s titu tio n a l a r g u m e n ts in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e r e v ie w h is s e n te n c e d e n o v o , b u t w ill r e v e r s e it o n ly if a n y e rr o rw a s h a rm f

u l. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. P az , 40 5 F . 3d 94 6, 94 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). W e have concl ud ed tha tthe S upr e m e C our t , i n B ooke r , r e j e c t e d the a r gum e nttha t , e ve n w he n the f e de r a l gui de l i ne s a r e appl i e d i n a n a dvi s ory f a s hi on, “ the S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght t o aj ury tr i a l pr ohi bi t s the s e nt e nc i ng c our tf r om m a ki ng f

a c tua l de t e rm i na t i ons tha tgo be y ond ade f

e nda nt ’ s a dm i s s i ons . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C hau, N o. 05- 10640, sl i p o p. at54 (11th C i r. S ept . 27 , 20 05 ). H er e, because V i l l al ob os w as se nt ence d p o s t- B o o k e r , w ith th e c o u r t tr e a tin g th e g u id e lin e s a s a d v is o ry , n o S ix th A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on oc c urr e d. R egar dl es s, even i f V i l l al ob os had n otbeen se nt ence d u nd eran advi sory gu i del i ne sc hem e, he fa i l ed t o sho w const i tut i on al error und erB oo ker. “ In A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe gove rnm e nt need no tal l ege i n i t s i nd i ctm entand n ee d n otprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthat ade f e nda ntha d pr i orc onvi c t i ons f oradi s tr i c tc our tt o us e thos e c onvi c t i ons f or purpos e s of

e nha nc i ng as e nt e nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r s e i l l e , 377 F . 3d 1249, 1 2 5 7 (1 1 th C ir.), cer t. d en ied , 1 2 5 S .C t. 6 3 7 (2 0 0 4 ). A fterth e S u p re m e C o u rt’s7

de c i s i ons i n A ppr e ndi a nd B l a ke l y , w e he l d tha tA l m e nda r e z - T orr e s r e m a i ns good la w . S e e M a r s e ille , 3 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 7 - 5 8 n .1 4 . M o r e o v e r , p r io rto s e n te n c in g in th e in s ta n t c a s e , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, in B ooke r , r e a f

f i rm e d i t s hol di ng i n A ppr e ndi tha t“ [ a ] ny f a c t( othe rtha n apr i or c onvi c t i on) w hi c h i s ne c e s s a ry t o s uppor tas e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the m a xi m um a uthor i z e d by the f

a c t s e s t abl i s he d by apl e aof gui l ty oraj ury ve r di c tm us tbe adm i tt ed by the defendantor prov ed t o a j ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” B oo ker, 543 U . S . a t___, 125 S . C t . a t756. A ga i n, a f t e rB ooke r , w e he l d tha tthe de c i s i on in A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s w a s “le f t u n d is tu rb e d b y A p p r e n d i, B la k e ly , a n d B o o k e r ,” and that“ a di stri ctcourtdo es no terr by r el yi ng on pri or conv i ct i on s t o enh ance a defe nd ant ’ s s ent ence . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . A l s o pr i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, the S upr e m e C our tr e a f f i rm e d i n S he pha r d the

“ c a t e gor i c a l ” appr oa c h t o e s t abl i s hi ng apr e di c a t e pr i orc onvi c t i on f orpurpos e s of the A rm e d C a r e e rC r i m i na l A c t , 18 U . S . C . § 924( e ) . S he pha r d, __ U . S . a t__, 125 S .C t. a t 1 2 5 9 - 1 2 6 3 . I n as e p a r a te s e c tio n , ap lu r a lity o f th e C o u r t e x p la in e d th a t, w hi l e adi s put e ove rw he the rabur gl a ry w a s avi ol e ntf e l ony f orpurpos e s of

the A ctcoul d b e “ desc ri bed as afa ctabou ta pri or conv i ct i on , i t[w as ] t oo fa r r em ov ed f r om the c onc l us i ve s i gni f i c a nc e of apr i orj udi c i a l r e c or d, a nd t oo m uc h l i ke the8

f i ndi ngs s ubj e c tt o J one s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 526 U . S . 227, 119 S . C t . 1215, 143 L .E d .2 d 3 1 1 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ] a n d A p p r e n d i, to s a y th a t A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s c le a r ly a u th o r iz e s aju d g e to r e s o lv e th e d is p u te .” I d . a t _

_ , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 1 2 6 2 . A f t e rthe S upr e m e C our tde c i de d S he pa r d, w e he l d, unde rpl a i n- e rr or re vi ew , thata di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i ca t i on of § 2 L 1. 2(b)(1)(A )( i i ) di d n otvi ol at e a de f e nda nt ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m a c ho- I ba r que n, 410 F . 3d 13 07 , 31 5-16 (11th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, (U . S . O ct . 11 , 20 05 ) ( N o. 05 -617 8). In af o o tn o te , w e n o te d th a t A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s m u s t b e f o llo w e d b e c au s e , w h ile S h ep ar d “m ay ar g u ab ly ca st d o u b t o n th e f u tu re p ro sp ec ts o f A lm en d ar ez -T o rr es ’s h o ld in g r e g a r d in g p r io rc o n v ic tio n s , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s n o t e x p lic itly o v e rru le d A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s .” I d . a t 1 3 1 6 n .3 . A cco rd i n g l y, i n so far as th e co u rt ’ s en h an cem en to f V i l l al o b o s’ s o ffen se le v e l u n d e r§ 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( iii) , a n d its c a lc u la tio n o f V illa lo b o s ’s c r im in a lhi s t ory poi nt s unde r§ 4A 1. 1, i nvol ve d de t e rm i na t i ons tha the ha d pr i or conv i ct i on s, these det erm i nat i on s di d n oti m pl i ca t e the A pp re nd i / B l akel y/B oo ker l i ne of cas es . M oreover, t o the ext entthatV i l l al ob os i s c on t endi ng that A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s is n o t ap p lic ab le b e c au s e th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d to s h o w th a t h is pri or conv i ct i on , i n add i t i on t o exi st i ng , w as a “ vi ol entfe l on y, ” w e a l so has r e j e c t e d thi s a r gum e nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e v. G a l l e gos - A gue r o, 409 F . 3d 1274, 1277Villalobos has abandone d any arguments as they

relate to his § 5K2.0 motion. S ee 4 Unite d State s v . L e vy, 4 16 F .3 d 1 27 3, 12 75 (1 1th Cir .) (explainingthat an a rgument not raise d in an appe llant’s openingbrief is de emed a bandoned) , petition for cert. filed, (U .S. Oct. 6, 2005) (No. 05-6930) . 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “w e f

in d n o m e r it in G a lle g o s - A g u e r o ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e S ix th A m e ndm e ntr e qui r e s tha taj ury , notaj udge , m us tde t e rm i ne w he the rhi s pr i or c o n v ic tio n is w ith in th e c a te g o ry o f o f f e n s e s s p e c if

ie d in § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v ii) ” ) . T hus , no c ons t i tut i ona l e rr oroc c urr e d. V illa lo b o s a ls o a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in r e f u s in g to de pa r tdow nw a r d f

ourl e ve l s , pur s ua ntt o § 5K 3. 1, ba s e d on the s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i ty be tw e e n r e - e ntry de f e nda nt s s e nt e nc e d i n the M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da a n d s im ila r ly s itu a te d d e f e n d a n ts s e n te n c e d in ju r is d ic tio n s th a t h a v e e a r ly di s pos i t i on pr ogr a m s . V i l l a l obos c ont e nds tha tthi s r e f us a l ( 1) w a s c ontr a ry t o the 4 f u n d a m e n ta l b a s is o f

th e f e d e r a l g u id e lin e s th a t s im ila r ly s itu a te d d e f e n d a n ts s houl d r e c e i ve s i m i l a rs e nt e nc e s , a nd ( 2) vi ol a t e d hi s r i ghtt o e qua l pr ot e c t i on of th e la w u n d e rth e D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. W e m ayno tre vi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s di sc re t i on ary dec i si on no tt o d epart fr om a gui del i ne ra ng e. U ni t ed S t at es v. P re ss l ey , 34 5 F . 3d 12 05 , 12 09 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). In U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 45 -46 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ), we r e c e n t l y d e t e rm i n e d th a t , p o s t - B o o k e r , we s t i l l l a c kj u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a di stri ctcourt ’ s di sc re t i on ary dec i si on no tt o d epart , “ so l on g as the di stri ctcourtEv en if wehad ju

ri sdic tio n toreview V ill alob os ’se qu al prote c tio n c laim, hefaile d to 5 raise it in the district cour t. Thus, our review of it only would be for

plain error. See United State s v . Peters , 4 03 F .3 d 1 26 3, 12 70(1 1th Cir . 2 00 5) . B e c a

us eVi llalob osha s f

aile d toc iteto authority from either

the Supreme Court or this Court supportingthis claim, no plain error oc cur re d. Se eUnite d State s v . A guil lard , 2 17 F .3 d 1 31 9, 13 21 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 0) (h oldingthat, “wh erene ith er t

heSup remeCourt

no r t hisCourt ha s ever re so lve d a

n is su e , a nd oth er c ircuit s aresplit on i t, there c an be no plain error in reg ard to that issue” ). 10 di d n oti ncorrec t l y bel i eve thati tl ac ked the autho ri ty t o app l y adeparture. ” W hen no thi ng i n the re cord i nd i ca t es otherw i se , w e w i l l as sum e thatthe di stri ctcourt unde r s t ood tha ti tha d author i ty t o de pa r tdow nw a r d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ha s e , 174 F . 3d 11 93 , 11 95 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). H e r e , n o th in g in th e r e c o r d in d ic a te s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t b e lie v e d th a t it la c k e d ju r is d ic tio n to d e p a r t. T o th e c o n tr a ry , in d e n y in g V illa lo b o s ’s § 5 K 3 .1 m o tio n to d e p a r t, th e c o u r t e x p lic itly s ta te d th a t it h a d g r a n te d s u c h d e p a r tu r e s in th e p a s t, b u t c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d e p a r tu r e w a s n o t w a rr a n te d in th e in s ta n t c a s e . T hu s, w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on no tt o d epart . S ee W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d a t1245- 46; s e e a l s o C ha s e , 174 F . 3d a t1195. 5 A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c ons i de r a t i on of V i l l al ob os’ s pri or conv i ct i on s i n sent enci ng hi m di d n otvi ol at e hi s c on st i tut i on al r ig h ts , in lig h t o f

th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n s in B la k e ly , B o o k e r , o rS h e p a r d . W e f ur the rc onc l ude tha tw e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on no tt o d epartdo w nw ar d. W e, there fore , af fi rm V i l l al ob os’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.