FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 18, 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. 05- 16324 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 8 4 - C R - T - 3 0 - T GW 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 R O D R I G O R O M E R O B O R R E R O , 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 18, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R o d r ig o R o m e r o B o rr e r o ap p e a ls h is s e n te n c e f o llo w in g h is g u ilty p le ato2

p o s s e s s io n w ith th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te a n d c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith th e in te n t to di s tr i but e 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 s ubj e c tt o the j uri sdi ct i on of the U ni t ed S t at es st atut es , pu rs uantt o 4 6 A pp . U . S . C . §§ 19 03 (a ), (g ), (j ); 2 1 U . S . C . § 9 6 0 (b )(1 )(B )(i i ). A ft er rev i ew i n g th e reco rd an d p art i es’ ar g u m en ts, w e c o n clu d e th at th e d istrict co u rt co rr ec tl y c alcu lated B o rr er o ’s se nt ence un der the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes. B orre ro’ s argum entthatU ni t ed S t at es v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) , pr e c l ude s the c our tf r om e n h a n c in g h is s e n te n c e b a s e d o n f a c ts th a t h e d id n o t a d m it is w ith o u t m e r it because the di stri ctcourtappl i ed the gu i del i nes a s a dv i soryand enh ance d B orr e r o’ s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on a ddi t i ona l f a c tua l f i ndi ngs by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e v i d e n c e . F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , w e A F F I R M.

I . B AC KG RO UN D A c c o r d in g to th e u n o b

je c te d to f

a c ts in th e p r e s e n te n c e in v e s tig a tio n r e p o rt, th e U S S B O O N E w a s c o n d u c tin g c o u n te r - d ru g o p e r a tio n s in th e E a s te rn P a c if ic wh e n i ts p o tt e d ag o - f

a s tv e s s e l wi th B o rr e r o o n b o a r d . As th e US S B OO NE approached, the go -f

as tvess el began m aneuveri ng erra t i ca l l y, and tw o cre w m em b ers th rew b al es o v erb o ard . A ft er u n su ccessfu l att em p t s t o st o p th e g o -fast v e s s e l, th e U S S B O O N E f ir e d s h o ts a t th e v e s s e l to d is ab le it.3

E pi f a ni o M or e no, ac r e w m e m be r , s t a t e d tha tthe drug r e pr e s e nt a t i ve , w ho w a s r e s p o n s ib le f

o rg u a r d in g d ru g s a n d c o n d u c tin g th e s a le o f th e d ru g s , to ld h im t o throw a r i fl e overboard. T he U S S B O O N E bo ar di ng t ea m di sc ov er ed a dead body on boa r d, w hi c h w a s i de nt i f i e d by the othe rc r e w m e m be r s a s the drug re pres ent at i ve. T he cr ew m em bers st at ed thatthe drug re pres ent at i ve ki l l ed hi m s e l f w i th aha ndgun t o a voi d c aptur e . A f t e rthe drug r e pr e s e nt a t i ve s hot hi m s e l f , B orr e r o t ook the ha ndgun a nd thr e w i ti n the w a t e rt o pr e ve ntM or e no f r om ki l l i ng hi m s e l f

. T he U S S B O O N E r e c ove ry t e a m r e c ove r e d 56 ba l e s of coca i ne fr om the ocean for at ot al of 2, 80 0 p ou nd s or 1, 27 0 k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne. T h e p r e s e n te n c e in v e s tig a tio n r e p o r t ap p lie d atw o - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t to B orre ro’ s off

ense l evel , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1) (2004 ), because there w e r e tw o f

i r e a rm s on boa r d the go- f a s tve s s e l , w hi c h w e r e thr ow n ove rboa r d a s the U S S B O O N E ap p ro ach ed . W i th a cri m i n al h i st o ry cat eg o ry o f I an d a t o t al o ffen se le v e l o f 3 7 , h is g u id e lin e im p r is o n m e n t r a n g e w a s 2 1 0 to 2 6 2 m o n th s . A thi s s ent enci ng hear i ng , B orre ro re as se rt ed hi s obj ec t i on t o the fi re arm e n h a n c e m e n t. T h e g o v e rn m e n t r e p lie d th a t it w a s r e a s o n ab ly f o r e s e e ab le th a t a gu n w as on bo ar d b ec ause B orre ro’ s c od ef endant s r eport ed thatB orre ro had part i ci pat ed i n o ther s m ug gl i ng vo ya ges i n w hi ch a drug repres ent at i ve, or “ l oad g u ar d ,” h ad b ee n ar m ed in o rd erto p ro tect th e c o ca in e. R 2 at 9 . B o rr er o ’s4

a tt orne y r e s ponde d tha t , w hi l e B orr e r o s a w the drug r e pr e s e nt a t i ve w i th agun w he n he w a s boa r di ng, B orr e r o ha d no c ontr ol ove rthe drug r e pr e s e nt a t i ve a nd thathe had n o cho i ce bu tt o con t i nu e w i th the vo ya ge. T he di stri ctcourtov errul ed B o rr e r o ’s o b

je c tio n a n d f

o u n d th a t it w a s f

o r e s e e ab le th a t af

ir e arm w a s o n b o a r d . B o rrero al so arg u ed th ath e w as en t i t l ed t o a m i n o r-ro l e red u ct i o n b ecau se hi s r ol e a s am e c ha ni c w a s l i m i t e d t o c ha ngi ng s pa rk pl ugs , be c aus e he w a s pa i d a fi xed am ou ntthatw as no tbase d o n the val ue of the cocai ne, and b ec ause he w as l e s s c ul pabl e tha n the c apt a i n a nd l oa d gua r d. B orr e r o c a l l e d F B I S pe c i a l A ge nt L in c o ln B e n e d ic to to te s tif y r e g a r d in g B o rr e r o ’s r o le in th e c r im e . B e n e d ic to te s tif ie d th a t f r o m h is in v e s tig a tio n , h e le a rn e d th a t in a d d itio n to B o rr e r o a n d h is codefendant s, ei gh tt o t en peop l e had organi ze d the cocai ne sm ug gl i ng tri p and that B orr e r o w a s “ a s c ul pabl e a s the othe ri ndi vi dua l s . ” R 2 a t30. B e ne di c t o a dm i tt e d, how e ve r , tha tthe othe re i ghtt o t e n i ndi vi dua l s he l d pos i t i ons a tva r i ous l e ve l s of th e c o n s p ir a c y , w ith v a ry in g d e g r e e s o f r e s p o n s ib ility , a n d th a t s o m e h a d a n e q u ity in te r e s t in th e p r o f

its . B orr e r o w a s the onl y m e c ha ni c aboa r d the go- f a s tve s s e l w i th the r e s p o n s ib ility f

o rm a in ta in in g th r e e la r g e , c o m p lic a te d in b o a r d e n g in e s . H is re spon si bi l i ty w as t o g etthe bo atfr om the coas tof C ol om bi a t o an u nk no w n fi nal de s t i na t i on, w hi c h c oul d ha ve be e n thous a nds of m i l e s a w a y . W he n a s ke d how5

ma n y o f th e a d d i t i o n a l i n d i v i d u a l s i d e n t i f i e d b y Be n e d i c t o h a d r e l a t i v e l y th e s a me funct i on as B orre ro, B enedi ct o repl i ed thatB orre ro’ s f un ct i on as a m ec hani c w as u n iq u e . A c c o r d in g to B e n e d ic to , “B o rr e r o ’s r e s p o n s ib ility a s am e c h a n ic o n th is vess el carryi ng m i l l i on s of dol l ar s of c ocai ne i s pre tty bi g. Iti s on h i s s ho ul ders al on e t o m ake s ure they c an getac ross the ocean. ” R 2 at34 . B orre ro w as hi re d because of hi s e xp er i ence w i th i nb oard di es el engi nes on g o-fa stbo at s, w hi ch oft en h a v e m e c h a n ic a l d if

f ic u ltie s . T he c ourtf

ound tha tB orr e r o qua l i f i e d f orthe s a f e ty va l ve pr ovi s i on a nd s e n te n c e d h im to 1 6 8 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t o n b o th c o u n ts to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly . O n ap p e a l, B o rr e r o a r g u e s th a t h e is e n title d to am in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n , p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2(b), because he w as l es s c ul pabl e than the ei gh tt o t en other i ndi vi dua l s w ho w e r e di r e c t l y i nvol ve d i n the c ons pi r a c y t o tr a ns por t1, 270 ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne . B orr e r o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n i m pos i ng a tw o- l e ve l s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e ntf orpos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm dur i ng the drug of f e ns e be c aus e hi s de c e a s e d c o- c ons pi r a t orbr oughtthe f i r e a rm on boa r d, a nd b ecau se, o n ce h e w as h i red , h e co u l d n o tq u i t . F i n al l y, B o rrero arg u es, fo r th e fi rst t i m e on app ea l , thatthe se nt enci ng enhancem entfor posse ss i ng a f i re arm vi ol at es B ooke r , be c aus e he di d notpl e a d gui l ty t o the f a c t s upon w hi c h the e nha nc e m e nt w a s b a s e d .6 I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng w he the rade f e nda nt qu al i fi es for am i no r r ol e a dj ustm entun der the gu i del i nes f or cl ear e rr or. U ni t ed S t at es v. R yan, 28 9 F . 3d 13 39 , 13 48 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( per c uri am ). W e a l so re vi ew fo r c learer ro r th e d istrict co u rt’s fin d in g s o f f ac t w h en iten h an ce s a d ef en d an t’ s s e n te n c e in c a s e s in v o lv in g th e u s e o f af ir e a rm in c o n

ju n c tio n w ith a n e lig ib le cr i m e and re vi ew the appl i ca t i on of the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes de nov o. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. G a l l o, 195 F . 3d 1278, 1280 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . B ooke rc l a i m s r a i s e d f or the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l ar e r evi ew ed for pl ai n err or. U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , __U .S . __ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e vi e w B orr e r o’ s thr e e c ha l l e nge s , r e l a t e d t o the s e s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w , i n turn.

A . M i nor - R ol e A dj us tm e nt T h e d efen d an th as th e b u rd en o f est ab l i sh i n g h i s m i n o r ro l e b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

e vi de nc e . R y a n, 289 F . 3d a t1348. “ S o l ong a s the ba s i s of the tri al court ’ s dec i si on i s s up po rt ed by the re cord and d oes noti nv ol ve a m i sapp l i ca t i on of a rul e of l aw , w e bel i eve thati tw i l l be ra re for a n app el l at e c ou rt t o con cl ud e thatthe se nt enci ng court ’ s det erm i nat i on i s c l earl y e rr on eous. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d 93 0, 94 5 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc)7

( e m pha s i s om i tt e d) . A s l ong a s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on i s s uppor t e d by the r e c or d, the s e nt e nc i ng j udge ne e d notm a ke s pe c i f i c s ubs i di a ry f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs r e g a r d in g th e d e f

e n d a n t’s r o le in th e o f

f e n s e . I d . a t 9 3 9 . P ur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2, the de f e nda nti s e nt i t l e d t o atw o poi nt de c r e a s e i n hi s of

f e ns e l e ve l i f

he w a s am i norpa r t i c i pa nt . A c c or di ng t o the c o m m e n ta ry , th e d e te rm in a tio n o f w h e th e rad e f

e n d a n t q u a lif

ie s f o rad e c r e a s e is “h e a v ily d e p e n d e n t u p o n th e f a c ts o f th e p a r tic u la rc a s e .” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 c m t. n. 3(C ). A “ m i no r part i ci pant ” i s apers on w ho i s “ l es s c ul pabl e than m ostother p a rtic ip a n ts , b u t w h o s e r o le c o u ld n o t b e d e s c r ib e d a s m in im a l.” I d . a t c m t. n .5 . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc onduc t s atw o- pr onge d a na l y s i s t o de t e rm i ne i f the de f e nda ntw a rr a nt s am i nor - r ol e a dj us tm e nt . R y a n, 289 F . 3d a t1348. “ F i r s t , the d is tr ic t c o u rt m u s t a s s e s s w h e th e rad e f e n d a n t’s p a r tic u la rr o le w a s m in o rin rel at i o n t o th e rel ev an tco n d u ctattri b u t ed t o h i m i n cal cu l at i n g h i s b ase o ffen se l e v e l . ” I d . E v e n “ wh 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. ” R od ri gu ez D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t942–43. F ur the rm or e , “ i n the drug c our i e rc ont e xt. . . the am o u n t o f d ru g s im p o rted is a m ater ial co n sid er atio n in as se ss in g a d ef en d an t’ s r ol e i n he rr e l e va ntc onduc t . ” I d. a t943. T he a m ountof drugs c a n be di s pos i t i ve8

o f th is is s u e in th e e x tr e m e c a s e . I d . H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin d e n y in g B o rr e r o am in o r - r o le re du ct i on . W i th regard t o the fi rs tpron g o f the R od ri gu ez D e V ar on t es t , B orre ro di d n otshow thathe pl ay ed a r el at i vel y m i no r r ol e i n the cond uctfor w hi ch he w as h el d acco u n t ab l e; th atco n d u ctb ei n g h i s w o rkas th e o n l y m ech an i c o n a g o -fast ve s s e l tr a ns port i ng 1, 270 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne . I tw a s B orr e r o’ s j ob t o e ns ur e the go- f a s tboa tw e ntf

a s t , w hi c h i s no m i norr ol e i n thi s c r i m e . F ur the rm or e , the a m ountof

c oc a i ne i nvol ve d w a s l a r ge a nd w a s am a t e r i a l f a c t ori n a s s e s s i ng B orr e r o’ s r ol e . O nl y i f

the f i r s tpr ong i s m e tdoe s the di s tr i c tc our tr e a c h the s e c ond pr ong, w hi c h “ r e qui r e s the di s tr i c tc our tt o a s s e s s ade f e nda nt ’ s r e l a t i ve c u lp ab ility v is - a - v is th a t o f a n y o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts .” R y a n , 2 8 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 9 . B ecau se th e fi rstp ro n g w as n o tm et , w e n eed n o treach th e seco n d p ro n g . B ecau se B orr e r o’ s c onduc tw a s notm i nori n r e l a t i on t o the c ha r ge d c onduc t , he i s not e nt i t l e d t o am i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on.

B . F i r e A rm P os s e s s i on T he S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s pr ovi de atw o l e ve l i nc r e a s e “ [ i ] f ada nge r ous w e apon ( i nc l udi ng af

i r e a rm ) w a s pos s e s s e d. ” U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) . “ T he a d ju s tm e n t s h o u ld b e ap p lie d if th e w e ap o n w a s p r e s e n t, u n le s s it is c le a r ly9

im p r o b ab le th a t th e w e ap o n w a s c o n n e c te d w ith th e o f f e n s e .” I d . a t c m t. n .3 . [ F ] ora§ 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) f

i r e a rm s e nha nc e m e ntf

orc o- c ons pi r a t orpos s e s s i on t o be appl i ed t o a conv i ct ed defendant , the go vernm entm ustprov e by aprepon dera nce of the e vi de nc e : ( 1) the pos s e s s orof the f i r e a rm w a s ac o- c ons pi r a t or , ( 2) the po ss es si on w as i n furthera nce of the conspi ra cy , (3) the defendantw as a m em ber of the c ons pi r a c y a tthe t i m e of pos s e s s i on, a nd ( 4) the c o- c ons pi r a t orpos s e s s i on w a s r e a s o n ab ly f

o r e s e e ab le b y th e d e f

e n d a n t. G a llo , 1 9 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 4 ( f o o tn o te o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is r e m o v e d ) . O nc e the gove rnm e ntha s s how n tha taf i r e a rm w a s pr e s e nta tthe s i t e of the c h a r g e d c o n d u c t, “th e e v id e n tia ry b u r d e n s h if ts to th e d e f

e n d a n t to s h o w th a t a conn ec t i on betw ee n the fi re arm and the offe nse i s c l earl y i m prob abl e. ” U ni t ed St a t e s v . Fi e l d s , 4 0 8 F. 3 d 1 3 5 6 , 1 3 5 9 ( 1 1 th Ci r . ) , c e rt . d e n i e d , __U . S. __ , 1 2 6 S. C t . 221 ( 2005) . W e obs e rve d tha ti tw a s notc l e a r l y i m pr obabl e tha tc oc o n s p ir a to r s tr a f

f ic k in g in lu c r a tiv e d ru g d e a ls to “[ f e e l] th e n e e d to p r o te c t th e ir i nv ent ory and proceeds as w el l as them se l ves w hi l e they w er e e ng agi ng i n that h ig h r is ka c tiv ity .” I d . a t 1 3 5 9 . I n th is c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin f in d in g th a t B o rr e r o f

a ile d to m ee thi s burden o f s ho w i ng thati tw as cl earl y i m prob abl e thatthe fi re arm s w er e conn ec t ed w i th the drug conspi ra cy . B orre ro do es no tdi sput e thatthe decea se d drug r e pr e s e nt a t i ve w a s ac o- c ons pi r a t orortha tB orr e r o w a s am e m be rof the c o n s p ir a c y a t th e tim e o f p o s s e s s io n . I n a d d itio n , th e f o r e s e e ab ility p r o n g is s a tis f ie d b e c au s e B o rr e r o a d m its th a t h e s a w th e r if le u p o n b o a r d in g , a n d it w o u ld10

have been rea sonabl y f

ores ee abl e thatthe drug re pres ent at i ve w ou l d h ave been a rm e d. F i na l l y , B orr e r o ha s f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe c onne c t i on be tw e e n the f i r e a rm a nd the drug c ons pi r a c y w a s c l e a r l y i m pr obabl e be c aus e the drug r e pr e s e nt a t i ve br oughtthe gun on boa r d t o pr ot e c tthe c oc a i ne a nd the c oc o n s p ir a to r s , a s th e y w e r e e n g a g e d in ah ig h - r is ka c tiv ity . C . B ooke rC ha l l e nge In B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe S ent enci ng G ui del i nes are a d v is o ry a n d th a t d is tr ic t c o u rts s h o u ld c o n s id e rth e s e n te n c in g f a c to r s s e t f

o r th in 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 w h e n i mp o s i n g as e n t e n c e . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S. a t2 4 5

– 4 6 , 1 2 5 S. C t . at7 5 7 . H o w ev er, i f th e d i stri ctco u rtap p l i es th e g u i d el i n es as ad v i so ry, nothi ng i n B ooke rpr ohi bi t s di s tr i c tc our t s f r om f i ndi ng by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e , f

a c t s tha tgo be y ond ade f e nda nt ’ s a dm i s s i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C hau, 42 6 F . 3d 13 18 , 13 24 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). B ec ause the di stri ct courtdi d p roperl y m ake the fa ctfi nd i ng s by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence, there w a s n o B o o k e re rr o r . B e c au s e th e r e w a s n o e rr o r , th e r e c o u ld b e n o p la in e rr o r . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. P i el ago, 13 5 F . 3d 70 3, 70 9 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ).

I I I . CONCL US I ON11

B orr e r o ha s appe a l e d hi s s e nt e nc e f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl e at o pos s e s s i on w ith th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te a n d c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith th e 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 s ubj e c tt o the j u ri sd i ct i o n o f th e U n i t ed S t at es st atu t es. A ft er rev i ew i n g th e reco rd an d p art i es’ ar g u m en ts, w e c o n clu d e th at th e d istrict co u rt co rr ec tl y c alcu lated B o rr er o ’s se nt ence un der the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes and thatB orre ro’ s argum entthatB oo ker pr e c l ude d the c ourtf

r om e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on f a c t s tha the di d not a d m it is w ith o u t m e r it. A FFI R M ED .