FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JAN 9, 2007 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- 17237 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 1 0 0 - C R - T - 1 7 MAP 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 M I K E B E N T R O B I N S O N , 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 9, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U 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:2

M i ke B e ntR obi ns on ( “ R obi ns on” ) appe a l s hi s 135- m onth s e nt e nc e f or pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne w hi l e on b o a r d a v e s s e l s u b

je c t to th e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , a n d c o n s p ir a c y to pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne w hi l e on boa r d a vess el subj ec tt o the j uri sdi ct i on of the U ni t ed S t at es . O n app ea l , R ob i nson ar gu es th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e rr e d in f in d in g th a t h e d id n o t q u a lif y f o ra m in o rr o le a dj us tm e nt , a nd f

ur the rc ont e nds tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e , c ons i de r i ng the fa ct ors s etforth i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . W e di sa gree , and A F F IR M hi s s ent ence . I . B AC KG RO UN D O n 27 F e brua ry 2005, R obi ns on a nd thr e e othe r s w e r e appr e he nde d on a gof a s tve s s e l i n the C a r i bbe a n S e a . T he f ouri ndi vi dua l s ha d a tt e m pt e d t o f l e e f r om the C oastG uard w hi l e j ett i soni ng bal es of cocai ne. T o st op them , the C oastG uard shotou tthe vess el ’ s e ng i nes. A ft erbo ar di ng , the C oastG uard di sc ov er ed 48 bal es of cocai ne, ea ch cont ai ni ng approx i m at el y 25 k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne. T he net w ei g h to f th e co cai n e w as 1 , 1 7 9 k i l o g ram s. R obi ns on pl e a de d gui l ty t o pos s e s s i on a nd c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e nt to d is tr ib u te f

iv e k ilo g r a m s o rm o r e o f c o c a in e w h ile o n b o a r d a v e s s e l s u b je c t to the j ur i s di c t i on of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s . S e e 46 U . S . C . app. §§ 1903( a ) , ( g) , ( j ) ; 21 U . S . C . § 9 60 (b)( 1)(B )( i i ). B as ed on the qu ant i ty of c ocai ne pres enton the bo atat3

the t i m e of R ob i nson ’ s a rr es t , and aft erappl yi ng re l evantadj ustm ent s, the di stri ct c our tc a l c ul a t e d a n of

f e ns e l e ve l of

thi r tythr e e . T ha tof

f e ns e l e ve l , i n c onj unc t i on w i th R obi ns on’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of I , r e s ul t e d i n agui de l i ne r a nge of 135 t o 1 6 8 m o n th s o f

i m p r i s o n m e n t . U. S . S . G. c h. 5, pt . A ( s e nt e nc i ng t abl e ) ( N ov. 2005) . T he c our ts e nt e nc e d R obi ns on t o 135 m onths of i m pr i s onm e nt , the l ow e nd o f th e ran g e. T h i s ap p eal fo l l o w s. I I . DI S CUS S I ON

“ W e r evi ew the se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ctcourtfor r ea sonabl enes s. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 785 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t i ng U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 , 7 6 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ) . T h is r e vi e w i s gui de d by the f a c t or s out l i ne d i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , i nc l udi ng the appr opr i a t e a dvi s ory s e nt e nc i ng r a nge unde rthe U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . C r a w f o r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . I n r e v ie w in g a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s e n te n c e , w e f ir s t a s s e s s w h e th e rth e c o u r t c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te d th e ap p lic ab le g u id e lin e r a n g e . S e e C r a w f o r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 8 - 7 9 . N ext , w e det erm i ne w hether the se nt ence i s r ea sonabl e i n the cont extof the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . S e e T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t786. W e r e vi e w f i ndi ngs of

f a c tr e ga r di ng s e n te n c in g f

o rc le a re rr o ra n d r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ap p lic a tio n o f th o s e f a c ts t o th e sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es de no vo . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 127 F . 3d 1388, 13894

( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A . S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne R a nge In d et erm i n i n g R o b i n so n ’ s o ffen se l ev el , th e d i stri ctco u rtb eg an w i th a b ase o f f e n s e le v e l o f

th ir ty e ig h t, p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 ( c ) ( 1 ) , w h ic h ap p lie s to of f e ns e s i nvol vi ng 150 ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne . T he c our tthe n appl i e d a tw o-l evel “ sa fe ty val ve” r educt i on un der §§ 2 D 1. 1(b)(7) and 5C 1. 2. T he court further r educed R ob i nson ’ s s ent ence by tw o l evel s und er§ 3 E 1. 1(a) for a cc ept ance of r e s pons i bi l i ty , a nd by one a ddi t i ona l l e ve l unde r§ 3E 1. 1( b) f ort i m e l y not i f

y i ng the go vernm entof hi s i nt ent i on t o p l ea d g ui l ty. A ft erthe adj ustm ent s w er e appl i e d, R obi ns on’ s of

f e ns e l e ve l w a s thi r tythr e e . B e c a us e R obi ns on ha d no pr i or cri m i n al co n v i ct i o n s, h i s cri m i n al h i st o ry cat eg o ry w as I. B ased o n an o ffen se l evel of thi rty three , and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I , R ob i nson ’ s a dv i sory g u i d e l i n e r a n g e wa s 1 3 5 t o 1 6 8 m o n th s . U. S . S . G. ch. 5, pt . A (s ent enci ng t abl e) . R ob i nson ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y f ai l i ng t o app l y a n add i t i on al tw o -l ev el d o w n w ard ad j u stm en t , p u rsu an tt o § 3 B 1 . 2 (b ), i n cal cu l at i n g h i s o ffen se l e ve l . S e c t i on 3B 1. 2( b) pr ovi de s f ora dow nw a r d a dj us tm e nti n the of f e ns e l e ve l of a de f e nda ntw ho w a s a m i norpa r t i c i pa nti n the c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty . W e r e vi e w f or c le a re rr o ra d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n o f a d e f e n d a n t’s r o le in th e o f

f e n s e . U n ite d S ta te s v . D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) .5

M or e ove r , “ [ t ] he pr opone ntof the dow nw a r d a dj us tm e nt. . . a l w a y s be a r s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng a m i t i ga t i ng r ol e i n the of f e ns e by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e . ” I d. a t939 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . B e c a us e w e f i nd tha tR obi ns on di d not c a rry hi s bur de n, w e a f

f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha the w a s not e nt i t l e d t o a m i t i ga t i ng r ol e r e duc t i on. I n de t e r m i ni ng w he the ra de f e nda nti s e nt i t l e d t o a m i norr ol e r e duc t i on u n d e r§ 3 B 1 .2 ( b ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f ir s t m u s t a s s e s s th e d e f

e n d a n t’s r o le “in rel at i o n t o th e rel ev an tco n d u ctattri b u t ed t o th e d efen d an ti n cal cu l at i n g [h i s] b ase offe nse l evel . ” I d. at94 0-41 . B ec ause the defi ni t i on of re l evantcond uctun der U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 is r e la tiv e ly b r o a d , “s o m e d e f e n d a n ts m a y b e h e ld a c c o u n tab le for c on du ctthati s m uch b roader than thei r s peci fi c a ct s. ” I d. at94 1. In such ci rc um st ance s, a m i t i gat i ng rol e a dj ustm entm ay be approp ri at e. S ee i d. If , how e ve r , a de f

e nda ntc a nnots how tha the pl a y e d “ a r e l a t i ve l y m i norr ol e i n the c onduc tf

orw hi c h [ he ] ha s a l r e a dy be e n he l d a c c ount abl e , ” he i s note nt i t l e d t o a d o w n w a r d a d

ju s tm e n t. I d . a t 9 4 4 . In addi t i on t o ass es si ng a def endant ’ s r ol e i n the re l evantcond uctfor w hi ch the defendantw as hel d acc ou nt abl e, a di stri ctcourtm ay al so consi der a de f e nda nt ’ s c ul pabi l i ty i n r e l a t i on t o tha tof othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s i n the r e l e va nt c onduc t . I d. A m i t i ga t i ng r ol e a dj us tm e ntm a y be appr opr i a t e i f “ the de f e nda nt6

w a s le s s c u lp ab le th a n m o s t o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts in [ h is ] r e le v a n t c o n d u c t.” I d . A do w nw ar d adj ustm enton thi s bas i s, ho w ever , i s onl y app ropri at e i f the courthas a l r e a dy de t e r m i ne d tha ta m i t i ga t i ng r ol e a dj us tm e nti s notf or e c l os e d by the c o m p a r is o n o f

th e d e f e n d a n t’s a c ts to th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h h e w a s h e ld a c c ount abl e i n de t e r m i ni ng a ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l . I d. a t945. W ith r e s p e c t to th e f

ir s t f a c to ra d d r e s s e d ab o v e , R o b in s o n d id n o t c a rry h is bu rden of dem on stra t i ng by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence thathi s r ol e w as m i no r i n rel at i on t o the re l evantcond uct . R ob i nson ’ s r ol e i n the offens e i nv ol ved se rvi ng as a c re w m em ber on a bo attra nspo rt i ng ov er1, 10 0 k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne, a nd w a s i de nt i c a l t o hi s r e l e va ntc onduc tf ors e nt e nc i ng purpos e s . A l though he a r g u e s th a t h is r o le w a s m in o rin r e la tio n to th e o v e r a ll c o n s p ir a c y , w e a s s e s s h is r o le in th e o f

f e n s e o n ly “a g a in s t th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h [ h e ] w a s h e ld ac coun t abl e a tse nt enci ng . . . . ” I d. H er e, R ob i nson w as hel d acc ou nt abl e a t s e nt e nc i ng onl y f

orhi s a c tua l c onduc t . I nde e d, hi s a c tua l c onduc ti nvol ve d a qua nt i ty of

drugs f a rl a r ge rtha n ne c e s s a ry t o a rr i ve a thi s ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of thi r ty e i ght . B e c a us e R obi ns on’ s a c tua l c onduc tw a s c oe xt e ns i ve w i th hi s r e l e va nt cond uctfor s ent enci ng pu rposes un der § 1B 1. 3, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rr i n de t e r m i ni ng tha tR obi ns on w a s note nt i t l e d t o a m i norr ol e r e duc t i on ba s e d on th e r e la tio n s h ip o f

h is a c tu a l c o n d u c t to th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h h e w a s h e ldRo b i n s o n al s o argu es th at th e di s tri ct co urt erre d i nfa i l i n g t o m ak e e xp re s s fa ctu alfi n di n gs 1 reg ardingcer

tain fac tors outlined in De Va ron that re late to the minor role determination. See De Varon, 175 F.3d at 945. We have held, however, that the district court is not require d to make any pa rticula r f inding s, oth e r tha

n theultimatedeterminatio n whether o r n ot to gra nt a mitig atingro le adjustment, so long a s the rec ord supports that deter mination, as it does here . See id. at 939-40. 7 ac coun t abl e. 1 R o b in s o n a ls o a r g u e s th a t h e s h o u ld h a v e b e e n g r a n te d a m in o rr o le a dj us tm e ntbe c a us e he w a s l e s s c ul pabl e tha n m os tof the othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s i n the re l evantcond uct . S ee i d. at94 4. W e nee d n otconsi der thi s a rgum ent , ho w ever , be c a us e R obi ns on f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha the pl a y e d a m i norr ol e i n the c onduc tf or w h ic h h e w a s h e ld a c c o u n tab le a t s e n te n c in g . A s w e s ta te d in D e V a r o n , “[ o ]n ly if the defendantca n est abl i sh that[he] pl ay ed a r el at i vel y m i no r r ol e i n the cond uct for w hi ch [he] has a l re ady bee n h el d acc ou nt abl e - no ta m i no r r ol e i n any l ar ger c r i m i na l c ons pi r a c y - s houl d the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nta dow nw a r d a dj us tm e ntf or m i norr ol e i n the of

f e ns e . ” I d. R obi ns on’ s f a i l ur e t o e s t abl i s h tha the pl a y e d a m i no r r ol e i n the re l evantcond ucti s di sposi t i ve, and i ti s notnece ss ary t o com pare h i s ro l e t o th ato f th e o th er p art i ci p an t s. S ee i d . at9 4 5 (“ F i rst , an d m o st i m por t a nt l y , the di s tr i c tc our tm us tm e a s ur e the de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e a ga i ns tthe re l evantcond uctfor w hi ch [he] w as hel d acc ou nt abl e a tse nt enci ng ; w e r ec og ni ze thati n m any c as es thi s m etho d o f a nal ys i s w i l l be di sposi t i ve. ”) .8

B . R ea sonabl enes s of R ob i nson ’ s S ent ence R ob i nson cont ends thathi s s ent ence i s unrea sonabl e bec ause the di stri ct co u rt d id n o t g iv e s u ff

icien t co n sid er atio n to ce rtain fa cto rs , i n clu d in g R o b in so n ’s pove r ty a nd hi s ne e d t o s uppor ta f a m i l y i n C ol om bi a . H e a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d a s e nt e nc e gr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry t o a c hi e ve the s e nt e nc i ng o b je c tiv e s s e t f

o r th in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) , in v io la tio n o f § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . W e di sa gree . W e r e je c t R o b in s o n ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e c o u r t d id n o t g iv e a d e q u a te co n sid er atio n to th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f ac to rs . T h e c o u rt ad d re ss ed R o b in so n ’s i m po veri shed backgrou nd , and exp re ss l y a ckno w l edged thati tconsi dere d the § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . W e h a v e h e ld th a t s u c h a s ta te m e n t b y th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t is s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e tha tthe c our tdi d i n f a c tc ons i de rthe f

a c t or s . T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d at7 8 6 . A s t o R o b i n so n ’ s arg u m en tth atth e sen t en ce w as g reat er th an n ecessary, w e not e tha thi s s e nt e nc e w a s a tthe l ow e nd of the c orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d gui de l i ne ra ng e, and w as fa r l ow erthan the st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm e nt . S e e 21 U . S . C . § 960( b) ( 1) . A c c or di ngl y , w e f i nd tha tR obi ns on has f ai l ed t o sho w thathi s s ent ence fa l l s out si de the ra ng e of r ea sonabl e s ent ence s a va i l abl e t o the di s tr i c tc our t . S e e T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t788.9 I I I . CONCL US I ON R o b in s o n c h a lle n g e s h is s e n te n c e o f 1 3 5 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t, c o n te n d in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly d e n ie d a d o w n w a r d a d ju s tm e n t o f

h is of f e ns e l e ve l , a nd tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e . A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the r e c or d on ap p e a l a n d th e b r ie f

s o f th e p a r tie s , w e f

in d n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . R o b in s o n f a ile d to es t abl i sh thatthe di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed i n d enyi ng hi m a tw o-l evel do w nw ar d adj ustm entun der § 3B 1. 2(b) of the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes. T he di stri ctcourt pr ope r l y c a l c ul a t e d the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne r a nge , a nd a rr i ve d a ta s e nt e nc e a tthe l ow end o f thatra ng e, fa r l ow erthan the st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence of l i fe i m pri sonm ent . A cc ordi ng l y, w e f i nd thatR ob i nson ’ s s ent ence i s r ea sonabl e. AF F I RME D.