FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 7, 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- 11243 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 3 3 2 - CR- T- 2 4 - M SS 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 E D I N - A L F O N S O M A R T I N E Z - E S P I T I A , 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 7, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

E d in A lf o n s o M a rtin e z - E s p itia , aC o lo m b ia n n a tio n a l, ap p e a ls h is c o n c u rr e n t 1 3 5 - m o n th s e n te n c e s f o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith i nt entt o d i stri bu t e f

i ve or m ore ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne w hi l e abo ar d a vess el subj ec t t o Un i t e d S t a t e s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 4 6 U. S . C . § § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( j ) , a n d ( g ) . On ap p e a l, h e a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h im am in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n a n d b y im p o s in g a n u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e th a t f a ile d to ta k e in to c ons i de r a t i on the s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s s e tf

or th a t18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . F orthe r e a s o n s s e tf

o rth mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. M a rtin e z - E s p itiap le d g u ilty to b o th o f th e ab o v e - m e n tio n e d c h a r g e s . A c c or di ng t o the undi s put e d f a c t s i n the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( P S I ) , on A ug ust3, 20 05 , the U ni t ed S t at es C oastG uard, usi ng 30 roun ds of di sabl i ng fi re , i nt e r c e pt e d a nd boa r de d ago- f a s tve s s e l tha tc ont a i ne d ove r525 ki l ogr a m s of coca i ne. In C ol om bi a, M art i nez- E spi t i a had been a se a t axi dri ver a nd w as fa m i l i ar w i th boa tna vi ga t i on. I n J ul y 2005, he w a s appr oa c he d a nd of f e r e d $8, 000, $4, 000 to b e p a id u p f

r o n t, if h e w o u ld p a r tic ip a te in atr ip tr a n s p o r tin g ille g a l d ru g s . Ma r t i n e z - E s p i t i awa s a l s o p a i d 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 C o l o m b i a n p e s o s f o rh i s e x p e n s e s . He agre ed t o p art i ci pat e bec ause he needed the m on eyt o p ayhi s m other’ s m edi ca l e x p e n s e s . M o r e o v e r , h e d id n o t k n o w a n y o f th e o th e rth r e e in d iv id u a ls o n th e tr ip . T h e P S I s e tMa rt i n e z - E s p i t i a ’ s b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l a t3 8 u n d e rU. S . S . G.Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)( 3), Mar tinez-Espiti a’s of

fenselevel would be reduce d 1 an additional four

levels if he rece ived a mitiga ting- role adjustment. S ee U .S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3) . 3 § 2 D 1. 1(c) (1). M art i nez- E spi t i a then rece i ved a tw o-l evel re du ct i on un der § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 7) be c aus e he m e tthe c r i t e r i af ors e nt e nc i ng w i thoutr e ga r d t o the s t a tut ory m i ni m um a s s e tf orth a t§ 5C 1. 2. H e a l s o r e c e i ve d athr e e - l e ve l r e duc t i on for a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty und er§§ 3E 1. 1(a) and (b), for at ot al offe nse l evel of 33 . W i th n o cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s, M art i nez- E spi t i a’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory w as c a t e gory I , w hi c h a tof

f e ns e l e ve l 33 pr ovi de d a n a dvi s ory s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 135 t o 168 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . P r i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, M a r t i ne z - E s pi t i af i l e d am ot i on a r g u i n g th a th e s h o u l d b e r e war d e d am i t i g a t i n g - r o l e a d j u s tm e n tu n d e rU. S . S . G. § 3B 1. 2. I n e s s e nc e , he a r gue d tha thi s c onduc tw a s l i m i t e d t o thi s one s hi pm e nt

1 a nd tha the w a s nota n or ga ni z e r , l e a de r , m a na ge r , ors upe rvi s orof a ny of the c r im in a l a c tiv ity , b u t o n ly ac r e w m e m b e rw ith o u t a n y k n o w le d g e o f th e o v e r a ll d ru g co n sp i racy. A ts e nt e nc i ng, M a rt i ne z - E s pi t i aa r gue d tha tthe r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha the w a s th e c ap ta in o f

th e b o a t a n d n o in d ic a tio n th a t h e w a s a w a r e o f o rp a r tic ip a te d in a ny l a r ge rc ons pi r a c y . H e a dm i tt e d t o be i ng the dr i ve rof the boa ta nd r e c e i vi ng $ 4 ,0 0 0 f o rh is r o le . T h e g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e d th a t M a r tin e z - E s p itiaw a s p a id n e a r ly a s m u c h a s th e c ap ta in o f th e b o a t, m o s t lik e ly b e c au s e h e h a d s k ill a s am a r in e r .4

T he di stri ctcourtno t ed thati thad g rant ed a r ol e a dj ustm entt o ano ther codefendant , R af

ae l P uert as -M on ca da, w ho had b ee n p ai d sub st ant i al l y l es s than the othe r s a nd w hos e r ol e w a s onl y t o oc c a s i ona l l y s t e e rthe boa ta nd c ha nge the g a s ta n k s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt o v e rru le d M a r tin e z - E s p itia ’s o b je c tio n , f in d in g th a t, alth o u g h h is ro le w as less th an a c ap tain , i t w as n o t l es s th an P u er tas- M o n ca d a’s rol e and he w as pai d sub st ant i al l y m ore. T he courtthen con si dere d the § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s , s pe c i f

i c a l l y r e ga r di ng the appr opr i a t e puni s hm e nta nd de t e rr e nc e a nd prot ec t i on of the com m un i ty, and i m po se d 1 35 m on ths’ i m pri sonm enton ea ch coun tt o run concurrent l y, the l ow end o f the advi sorygu i del i ne ra ng e. O n ap p e a l, M a rtin e z - E s p itiaf ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly d en i ed h i m a m i n o r-ro l e red u ct i o n b ecau se h i s ro l e i n th e v o yag e w as as a c r e wm a n , i twa s h i s f

i r s ttr i p , a n d h e h a d n o i n v o l v e m e n ti n th e p l a n n i n g . He f u r th e ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to c o rr e c tly ap p ly o rta k e in to c ons i de r a t i on M a rt i ne z - E s pi t i a ’ s r e l e va ntc onduc tw he n i tde ni e d hi m am i ni m a l or m i norr ol e r e duc t i on e ve n though he w a s nota n or ga ni z e r , l e a de r , m a na ge r , or su p erv i so r o f th e cri m i n al act i v i ty. W e r evi ew “ a di stri ctcourt ' s det erm i nat i on of w hether adefe nd antqu al i fi es f ora n a dj us tm e ntunde rthe s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s f orc l e a re rr or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B oy d, 291 F . 3d 1274, 1277 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . “ T he de f e nda ntbe a r s the bur de n of5

p r o v i n g h i s m i n o rr o l e b y ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e . ” I d . Un d e rU. S . S . G. § 3B 1. 2( b) , ade f

e nda ntqua l i f

i e s f oratw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on t o hi s of f e ns e l e ve l i f

he w as a m i no r part i ci panti n the offens e. U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2(b). T he gu i del i nes further defi ne a m i no r part i ci pantas on e “ w ho i s l es s c ul pabl e than m ostother p a r tic 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 ., c o m m e n t. ( n .5 ) . A s w e c l a r i f

i e d i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d 930 ( 11th C i r . 1999) (e n b anc) , w hen d et erm i ni ng w hether am i no r- rol e r educt i on i s w arrant ed, a di stri ct c o u r t s h o u ld c o n s id e r( 1 ) w h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n t p la y e d am in o rr o le in r e la tio n to the re l evantcond uctfor w hi ch he w as hel d acc ou nt abl e and (2) w here approp ri at e, the c ul pabi l i ty of

the de f e nda nta s m e a s ur e d a ga i ns ttha tof othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s i n the r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d a t 9 4 0 , 9 4 4 . H e r e , i tc annotbe s a i d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc l e a r l y e rr e d by de ny i ng E s c oba r - M a rt i ne z am i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on. A ppl y i ng the f i r s tpa r tof

D e V a r on, the re l evantcond uctfor w hi ch he w as hel d acc ou nt abl e w as the w ei gh tof the bal es di s c a r de d f

r om the go- f

a s tboa t , de t e rm i ne d t o w e i gh 525 ki l ogr a m s . I n a ddi t i on, h e ad m i tt ed t o b ei n g a d ri v er o n th e b o atan d h ad rel ev an tsk i l l s fro m h i s j o b as a se a t axi dri ver. T here fore , hi s a ctual and rel evantcond uctw er e the sa m e. “ [W ] hen ad ru g c o u r ie r ’s r e le v a n t c o n d u c t is lim ite d to [ h is ] o w n a c t o f im p o r ta tio n , a6

di s tr i c tc ourtm a y l e gi t i m a t e l y c onc l ude tha tthe c our i e rpl a y e d a n i m por t a ntor es se nt i al rol e i n the i m po rt at i on of tho se drug s. ” D eV ar on , 17 5 F . 3d at94 2-43 . In addi t i on t o transpo rt i ng a l ar ge qu ant i ty of drugs, M art i nez- E spi t i a a l so w as r e s p o n s ib le f

o rd r iv in g th e b o a t, a n e s s e n tia l r o le . W i th r e s pe c tt o the s e c ond pa r tof the D e V a r on a na l y s i s , the r e i s i ns uf f i c i e nt e v id e n c e to s h o w th a t M a rtin e z - E s p itiaw a s am in o ro rm in im a l p a r tic ip a n t in com pari son t o o thers . In det erm i ni ng w hether adefe nd antw as l es s c ul pabl e than others , “ the di stri ctcourtshou l d l oo k t o o ther part i ci pant s onl y t o the ext entthat the y a r e i de nt i f

i abl e ordi s c e rni bl e f

r om the e vi de nc e . ” I d. a t944. H e r e , the pers on s i dent i fi abl e f

rom the evi dence ar e M art i nez- E spi t i a and the three other c r e w m e m be r s of

the ve s s e l . M or e ove r , “ w he r e the r e l e va ntc onduc ta ttr i but e d t o a defe nd anti s i dent i ca l t o [hi s] ac tual cond uct , [he] cann otprov e that[he] i s e nt i t l ed t o a [m i t i gat i ng -r ol e] adj ustm entsi m pl y by poi nt i ng t o som e broader c ri m i nal s c h e m e in w h ic h [ h e ] w a s am in o rp a r tic ip a n t b u t f o rw h ic h [ h e ] w a s n o t h e ld ac coun t abl e. ” I d. at94 1. A s the P S I i nd i ca t ed, M ader a- L op ez w as i dent i fi ed as the c apt a i n, a nd a nothe rc ode f e nda nt , M a r c os V a l e nz e l a , w a s hi r e d t o pr ot e c tthe drug s on the bo at . A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , i tw as re veal ed thatthe other codefendant , P uert as -M on ca da, occa si on al l y s t ee re d the bo atand repl ac ed gas t anks. U nl i ke P uert as -M on ca da, ho w ever , M art i nez- E spi t i a w as pai d n earl y a s7

m uc h a s the c apt a i n of

the boa ta nd hi s r ol e w a s c l e a r l y t o dr i ve the boa t . D r i vi ng the bo ati s notan i nsub st ant i al rol e, as evi denced by the am ou ntof m on eyoffe re d t o M art i nez- E spi t i a, and h e f ai l ed t o p rovi de evi dence thathi s r es po nsi bi l i t i es aboard the vess el w er e l es s vi t al t o the ent erpri se than tho se of any other c re w m e m b e r s . T h e r e f

o r e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrb y r e f u s in g to g r a n t ar o le r e d u c tio n . N e x t , M a rt i n e z - Es p i t i aa r g u e s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r tv i o l a t e d th e Su p r e me C o u rt ’ s d eci si o n i n B o o k er b ecau se i tfai l ed t o co n si d er “ th e n u m ero u s fact o rs” th atco u l d h av e resu l t ed i n a m o re fai r an d j u stsen t en ce, su ch as h i s fam i l y, fi nanci al backgrou nd , heal th, educat i on al and v ocat i on al l evel , and l ac k o f c ri m i nal hi s t ory . H e f

urthe ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i m pos i t i on of al ow - e nd g u id e lin e s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le p u r s u a n t to § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . W he r e ade f

e nda ntc ha l l e nge s hi s ove r a l l s e nt e nc e , w e r e vi e w f or un re as on abl enes s. U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ear, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 44 (11th C i r. 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 261- 62, 125 S . C t . 738, 765- 66, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) ( hol di ng tha tappe l l a t e c our t s r e vi e w s e nt e nc e s f or un re as on abl enes s i n l i gh tof the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors) . W e have further hel d that

“ no thi ng i n B oo ker or e l se w here re qu i re s the di stri ctcourtt o st at e on the re cord tha ti tha s e xpl i c i t l y c ons i de r e d e a c h of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s ort o di s c us s e a c h of8

the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S cott , 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). A n ac k n o w led g m en t th at th e d istrict co u rt h as co n sid er ed a d ef en d an t’ s a r g u m e n t s a n d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s i s s u f

f i c i e n tu n d e rB o o k e r . I d . Mo r e o v e r , we have rej ec t ed the no t i on thata s ent ence w i thi n the gu i del i nes i s perse re as on abl e, al tho ug h “ the use of the G ui del i nes r em ai ns ce ntra l t o the se nt enci ng proces s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 7 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). W e have further st at ed that , “ there i s arang e of r ea sonabl e s ent ence s f rom w hi ch the di stri ctcourt m aychoo se , and w hen the di stri ctcourti m po se s ase nt ence w i thi n the advi sory G ui de l i ne s r a nge , w e or di na r i l y w i l l e xpe c ttha tc hoi c e t o be ar e a s onabl e one . ” I d. a t 7 8 8 . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc ourte xpl i c i t l y a c know l e dge d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s , p a rtic u la r ly th o s e r e la tin g to a n ap p r o p r ia te p u n is h m e n t, det erre nce, and p rot ec t i on of the com m un i ty. F urtherm ore, the court a c k n o w le d g e d a n d u n d e r s to o d th a t M a r tin e z - E s p itiah a d c o m m itte d th e c r im e in q u e s tio n b e c au s e h is m o th e rw a s ill a n d h e n e e d e d m o n e y to c a r e f o rh e r . T h is C our tha s a c know l e dge d tha tthe G ui de l i ne s pr om ul ga t e d by the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on ha ve be e n hone d t o t a ke i nt o c ons i de r a t i on the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , a nd, th e r e f o r e , Ma rt i n e z - E s p i t i a ’ s 1 3 5 - m o n th c o n c u rr e n ts e n t e n c e s , i m p o s e d a tth e l o wend o f the appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra ng e, adequat el y r ef l ec t ed hi s per sonal9

c h a r a c te r is tic s a n d h is to ry , ju s t p u n is h m e n t, a n d a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e . S e e S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 0 , n .5 . M a rtin e z - E s p itiah a s n o t p r o v id e d a n y e v id e n c e th a t h is s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s onabl e , a nd the r e c or d de m ons tr a t e s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tt ook th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s a n d th e g u id e lin e s in to c o n s id e r a tio n b e f o r e im p o s in g h is se nt ence . W e, there fore , cann otsay thatM art i nez- E spi t i a’ s s ent ence w as u n r e a s o n ab le . AF F I RME D.