FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 21, 2006 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. 06- 11984 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 8 0 0 9 8 - C R - DT KH 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 A N T O N I O D A R I A S , 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

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 21, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A nt on i o D ar i as appeal s hi s 72-m on th sent ence i m po se d aft erhe w as c onvi c t e d by a j ury f

orni ne c ount s of

s m uggl i ng a l i e ns i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s f or“Wherea statutorily require d minimumsentenc e is greater than themaxi mum of the 1 applicableguideline ra

ng e, the statutorily

require d minimumsentenc e shall be theguideline sentenc e.” U .S.S.G. §5G1.1(b). 2 fi nanci al gai n, i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 4(a) (2)( B )( i i ). T he pres ent ence i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) c a l c ul a t e d hi s a dvi s ory gui de l i ne r a nge a s 30 t o 37 m on ths, base d o n h i s off ense , the nu m ber of pers on s s m ug gl ed, and a tw o-l evel e nha nc e m e ntf

orobs truc t i on of

j us t i c e . H ow e ve r , a s t a tut ory m a nda t ory m i ni m um ap p lie d , m a k in g h is g u id e lin e r a n g e s e n te n c e 6 0 m o n th s , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 G1 . 1 ( b ) . T h e g o v e rn m e n tm o v e d f o ra n u p wa r d d e p a r tu r e p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. 1 §§ 5K 2. 0( a ) ( 1) ( A ) a nd 5K 2. 21, ori n the a l t e rna t i ve a n upw a r d va r i a nc e ba s e d on the s e nt e nc i ng f

a c t or s i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . T he gove rnm e ntba s e d thi s m ot i on o n D a r ia s ’s o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e a f

te rh is in d ic tm e n t f

o rth e s m u g g lin g o f

f e n s e . A tse nt enci ng , the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatD ar i as had o bstruct ed j ust i ce , ju stifyin g th e tw o -lev el en h an ce m en t. T h e c o u rt also fo u n d th at D ar ias’s obs truc t i on of

j us t i c e bor e on the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e . T he courtthen i m po se d a se nt ence of 72 m on ths. T he courtnever rul ed on the up w ar d d e p a r tu r e m o tio n . O n ap p eal , D ari as arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rtw as n o tau th o ri zed t o ad j u st hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , be c a us e a m a nda t ory m i ni m um appl i e d. H e f ur the ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by de pa r t i ng f r om the gui de l i ne r a nge3

w i th o u tp ro p erl y ru l i n g o n th e g o v ern m en t ’ s u p w ard d ep artu re m o t i o n . H e al so ar gu es thathi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s w er e vi ol at ed by the di stri ctcourt ’ s var i ance ba s e d on unc ha r ge d c onduc t , w hi c h w a s notde c i de d by a j ury orpr ove n be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt . F i na l l y , he a s s e r t s tha thi s c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s a nd the na tur e of the o f f e n s e m a d e a n y d e p a r tu r e f r o m th e 6 0 m o n th g u id e lin e s e n te n c e u n w a rr a n te d . W e r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t's f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o ra n d its ap p l i cat i o n o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es de no vo . U ni t e d Stat e s v . C ar tw r i

ght , 413 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , ce rt. deni ed , 74 U . S . L . W . 3393 ( 2006) . W e r e vi e w a de f e nda nt ' s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e f orr e a s onabl e ne s s , i n l i ghtof th e f a c to r s lis te d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . U n ite d S ta te s v . M

a r tin , 455 F . 3d 1227, 1237 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . H ow e ve r , w he r e a de f e nda ntr a i s e s a s e nt e nc i ng a r gum e nt f o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, w e r e v ie w o n ly f o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni t ed Stat es v. She l ton, 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 28 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). U nd erpl ai n err or re vi ew , there m u s t b e ( 1 ) a n 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 s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . Id . at 13 28 -29. If

these three pron gs ar e m et , w e m ayexer ci se ou r di sc re t i on t o n ot i ce the e rr orbutonl y i f

i t“ s e r i ous l y a f

f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” Id . a t 1 3 2 9 . D a r i a s a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by va ry i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s be c a us e the “ [ e ] xc e pta s othe rw i s e s pe c i f i c a l l y pr ovi de d”4

l a ngua ge of

§ 3551( a ) pr e ve nt s the i rc ons i de r a t i on w he r e a m a nda t ory m i ni m um appl i es . W e f

i nd no m er i tt o thi s a rgum ent . A ft er U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 543 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a d is tr ic t c o u r t is r e q u ir e d to c ons i de rthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s i n f

a s hi oni ng ar e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e . A l though the s e nt e nc i ng s t a tut e l i m i t s the c our t ’ s a uthor i ty t o i m pos e a s e nt e nc e be l ow the st atut ory m i ni m um , i tdo es no tl i m i tthe court ’ s autho ri ty t o i m po se a s ent ence ab o v e th e m in im u m . See 18 U . S . C . § 3553( e ) a nd ( f ) . T he r e f

or e , the c our tdi d not e rrin v a ry in g b a s e d o n th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . D a r i a s a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by notrul i ng on the go vernm ent ’ s m ot i on for upw ar d d epar ture. S i nce D ar i as di d n otobj ec tat s e nt e nc i ng, w e r e vi e w onl y f orpl a i n e rr or . A n e rr ori s pl a i n w he n i ti s obvi ous or c le a ru n d e rc u rr e n t la w . U ni t ed Stat es v. B aker , 43 2 F . 3d 11 89 , 12 07 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). A ft erB oo ke r , a di s tr i c tc our ti s no l onge rr e qui r e d t o s e nt e nc e w i thi n the r a n g e p r o v id e d b y th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , b u t it is s till o b lig a te d to c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te th a t G u id e lin e r a n g e . U ni t ed Stat es v. T

al l ey , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . W e ha ve he l d tha tthe “ appl i c a t i on of the gui de l i ne s i s not c o m p le te u n til th e d e p a r tu r e s , if a n y , th a t a r e w a rr a n te d a r e ap p r o p r ia te ly consi dere d. ” U

ni t e d Stat e s v . J

or di , 418 F . 3d 1212, 1215 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he d i stri ctco u rtw as req u i red t o co n su l tth e co rrect l y cal cu l at ed g u i d el i n e. B ecau se5

the r e w a s no rul i ng on the gove rnm e nt ’ s upw a r d de pa r tur e m ot i on, i tc oul d notdo s o . N o t c o n s u ltin g th e c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te d r a n g e is p la in e rr o r . N e v e r th e le s s th is e rr orw a s notpr e

j udi c i a l , be c a us e e ve n a s s um i ng tha ta n upw a r d de pa r tur e w a s not w arra nt ed, the di stri ctcourtcoul d, and d i d, vary the se nt ence usi ng § 3 55 3(a) fa cto rs . T h u s, th er e is n o ev id en ce th at h ad th e c o u rt ru led o n th e g o v er n m en t’ s m o tio n th a t D a r ia s ’s s e n te n c e w o u ld b e d if f e r e n t. N e xt , D a r i a s r a i s e s , f

orthe f i r s tt i m e , a c ons t i tut i ona l obj e c t i on t o the us e of h i s o b stru ct i o n o f j u st i ce t o en h an ce h i s sen t en ce. H e arg u es th ati f su ch an o ffen se i s s uffi ci entt o w arranta s i gn i fi ca ntse nt ence enhancem ent , the C on st i tut i on m ay r e q u ir e th a t s u c h c o n d u c t b e p r o s e c u te d a n d p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. W e di s a gr e e . D a r i a s a dm i tt e d t o the unde r l y i ng f a c t s by notobj e c t i ng t o the m i n the P S I r e p o r t. She l ton , 400 F . 3d a t1330 ( hol di ng tha tf a c tua l f i ndi ngs s e tf

or th i n a P S I n o t o b

je c te d to b y a d e f

e n d a n t a r e d e e m e d a d m itte d ) . P o s t- B oo ke r , th is c ir c u it has c on t i nu ed t o al l ow the di stri ctcourtt o con si der r el evantcond uct , i ncl ud i ng that f orw hi c h the de f

e nda ntw a s notc ha r ge d ora c qui tt e d, f ore nha nc e m e nt s unde rthe s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s , s o l ong a s the c onduc ti s pr ove n by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e v id e n c e . Se e U

n ite d S ta te s v . Fa u s t, 456 F . 3d 1342, 1347 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc om m i ta c l e a rorobvi ous e rr ori n r e l y i ng on such cond uctt o v ary D ar i as ’ s s ent ence .6

F i nal l y, D ar i as ar gu es thatnei ther hi s off ense no r hi s c hara ct er i st i cs w a rr a nt e d a s e nt e nc e above the s t a tut ory m a nda t ory m i ni m um . I n a ddi t i on, he m a i nt a i ns tha tthe c our tdi d note xpl a i n w hy i ti m pos e d a s e nt e nc e out s i de the gui de l i ne r a nge . W e r e vi e w s e nt e nc e s unde rthe a dvi s ory gui de l i ne r e gi m e f or r e a s o n ab le n e s s . B oo ke r , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 6 5 . R e a s o n ab le n e s s r e v ie w is d e f e r e n tia l, r e q u ir in g u s to " e v a lu a te w h e th e rth e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ils to ac hi eve the pu rposes of se nt enci ng as st at ed i n sec t i on 35 53 (a ). ” U ni t ed Stat es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at78 8. W hi l e the di stri ctcourtm ustconsi der the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, i ti s notre qu i re d t o st at e e xp l i ci t l y thati thas don e s o o r t o d i sc uss e ac h f a c to ro n th e r e c o r d . U

n ite d S ta te s v . Sc o tt , 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . I ti s s uf f i c i e ntf orthe c our tt o s t a t e the i tha s c ons i de r e d the de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc i ng a r g u m e n ts a n d § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . I d . a t1330. D a r i a s be a r s the bur de n of es t abl i shi ng thathi s s ent ence i s unrea sonabl e i n l i gh tof the re cord and § 35 53 (a ) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s . T al l ey , 431 F . 3d a t788. A ft erthe i m po si t i on of the st atut ory m i ni m um , the gu i del i ne ra ng e s ent ence b e c a m e 6 0 m o n th s , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .1 ( b ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ld im p o s e a n u p w a r d v a r ia n c e a f te rc o n s id e r in g th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f a c to r s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. E ldi ck , 443 F . 3d 783, 789 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tc l e a r l y c ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s a nd i m pos e d a7

re as on abl e s ent ence . T he courtre as on ed thatD ar i as ’ s three att em pt s t o o bstruct j us t i c e w e r e r e l a t e d t o hi s hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s , a nd the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of

hi s of f e ns e . T he c our ta l s o s t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the se nt enci ng fa ct ors. T he courtdi d n otneed t o add re ss every a rgum entfor a vari ance on the re cord, and g i ven D ar i as att em pt s t o evade pu ni shm ent , the di stri ct c o u r t’s d e c is io n w a s n o t u n r e a s o n ab le . U po n a re vi ew of part i es ’ ar gu m ent s a nd the re cord on appeal , w e c an di sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or, and t here fore w e a ff i rm the deci si on of the di stri ct c o u r t. A F F I R M E D .