FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAR 15, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN T HE U

NITED STA TES C OURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1202 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 41 3- CR-T-2 4- EAJ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RAUL CAMACHO-BENITEZ, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- (M ar ch 15, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN Aand H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant R au l C am ac ho- Be nit ez appe al s hi s 13 5- m onth se nte nc e im

pose d a ft er

he ple d gu ilty

to (1 ) poss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibu te fi ve kil ogr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne w hil e ab oard

ave sse l su

bj ec t t o th e j ur isd ic tio n2

of the U nit ed

S tate s, in vio latio n of

46 App. U . S. C. § 19 03( a) , ( g) ; 18 U . S. C. § 2; an d 21 U . S. C. § 96 0( b) (1 )( B) (i i) ; and ( 2) c onsp ir ac y to poss es s w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te f

ive kil ogr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne w hil e ab oard

a ve sse l su bj ec t t o th e j ur isd ic tio n of

the U nit ed

S tate s, in vio la tio n of

46 App. U . S. C. § 19 03( a) , ( g) , and (j); an d 2 1 U.S.C. § 96 0( b) (1 )(B) (ii ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we a f f i rm. C a ma c h o - B e n i t e z f

i r s tar g u e s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u rte rr e di nd e n yi n g h i m a m ino r ro le r ed

uc tio n, U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2( b) . H e as se rt s th at he w as le ss c ulp ab le than th e oth er

pe rs ons fo und on the boat ( w hic h w as c ar ry ing 5, 443 kil ogr am s of co ca ine ) be ca

use he w as “ m er el y

ac re wm em

be r” w ho p lay ed

asm al le r ro le in the sm uggl ing op eration than the boat’s c aptain or drug representative. W e re vie wf

or c le ar e rr or the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio ns a bout a de fe ndant’ s r ole in anof

fe nse . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ry an , 289 F . 3d 1 339, 134 8 ( 11th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . Th e b u r d e ni s o nth e d e f e n d an tt o e s t ab l i s h h i s r o l e b y a pr ep onde ranc e of

e vid en ce . I d. U nde r U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2( b) , “ [a ] de fe ndant w ar rants atw o- le ve l r ed

uc tio n f or play ing a m ino r ro le in anof

fe nse if he is le ss culpable than m ost oth er participants, althoug h his role couldnot be described as m ini m al . ” I d. S en te nc ing c ourts s houl d c onsi de r tw o e le m en ts whe n de te rm ini ng a defe ndant’s r ole in an offense: “ first, the defendant’ s role in the relevant conduct3

for which [he] has been held accountable at sentencing, and, sec ond, [his] role as co m pare d to that of

oth er part ic ipants in [h is] r el ev an t c ondu ct . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 940 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). T he dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed no c le ar e rr or in de te rm ini ng tha t C am ac hoBe nit ez ’ s r ole in the of

fe nse w as m or e than m ino r. About the f ir st e le m en t, Cam ac ho- Be nit ez ’ s se nte nc e w as ba se d on ly on the r el ev an t c ondu ct

f or w hic h he w as he ld a cc ount ab le a t se nte nc ing : 5, 443 kil ogr am s of c oc ai ne se iz ed

f ro m the boat on w hic h he w as f

ound . I n th e dr

ug c our ie r co nte xt, alarg e am ount of dr ugs is an im po rta ntfact orin de te rm in in g t he av ai labi li ty of a m in orrol e ad jus tm en t. Id . a t 94 3 ( “ [T ] he a m ount of dr ugs im porte d is am at er ia l c onsi de ratio n in as se ssi ng a

de fe ndant’ s r ole in [h is] r el ev an t c ondu ct . . . . [ W ] e do n ot f or ec los e the pos sib ili ty

that am ount

of dr ugs m ay be dis posi tiv e . . . . ” ). About the se co nd elem ent, Cam acho-Benitez w as one of only nine crewm em

bers on the boat, which w as c ar ry ing ove r fi ve ton s of

c oc ai ne . H e ha s f

ai le d to sho wthat he “ w as le ss cu l p ab l e t h an m o s to th erp ar t i ci p an t s i n[h i s ] re l ev an tco n du ct .” Id . a t9 4 4 . We se e no c le ar

e rr or in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef usa l t o a ppl y am ino r ro le r ed

uc tio n in this case. Cam ac ho- Be nit ez ne xt arg ue s th at his se nte nc e w as unr ea sona ble und er the Supr em e Co ur t’s d eci si on in Uni te d S ta te s v . Boo ke r, 12 5 S .Ct. 7 38 (20 05 ). He4

co nte nds that, in de te rm ini ng h is s en te nc e, the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have co nsi de re d th at

he li ve s inpov er

ty , str uggl es to supp ort hi s w if e an d c hil dr en , and wa s disp laced fr om

his hom e in Colom

bia by arm ed guerillas. C am acho-Benitez al so a sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to c onsi de r suf

fi ci en tly the ne ed to av oid unwarr anted sentencing d isparities with his co-defendants who rece ived sho rter sentences and with a co-def endant who brough t a fir earm on the boat bu t rece ived the sam e se nte nc e as Cam ac ho- Be nit ez . H e co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d ha ve co ns id eredth e “ vi ct im le ss na tu re o f [h is ] of fen se .” Cam ac ho- Be nit ez w as se nte nc ed a ft er the S upr em e Co urt i ssu ed it s de ci sio n in Booker; so we re view his sentence for reasonableness in the ligh t of the fac tors se t out i n 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) . U nit ed S ta te s v. W ini nge ar , 422 F . 3d 1 241, 1244 -46 (11th Cir. 2005). Under section 355 3(a), a district court shouldconsider, am ong oth er

thi ngs, the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse , the his tor

y and ch ar ac te ri sti cs of

the de fe ndant, the ne ed

f or a de quate de te rr en ce and p ro te ct ionof the pub lic , pol ic y

state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the m ed ic al and e duc at ion al ne ed s of the de fe ndant, and the ne ed to av oid un warra nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 )-(7 ). W e conclude that Cam acho-Benitez’ s sentence wa s reasonable. The district co urt c or re ct ly c al cu late d hi s Guid el ine s im pr iso nm en t r an ge a s 13 5 to 168Exc e pt f or dis putin gthe dis tr ic t c ourt’s deci si on no t to a pp ly a min or ro le re du c tio n to his 1 sentenc e, Camach o -B enitez does not challeng e the district cour t’s calc ulation of his Guidelines rang e. Th e g ov e rnme nt a

rgue s th at Ca macho -B e nit e z’s fa ilure to r e qu e st a se nte nc e be low

his 2 applicable Guidelines ra

ng e, raise an objection in district court to the rea sonablene ss of his sentence ,

5 m onth s; and the court sentenced Cam acho-Benitez to the lowe st poin t of that range . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. T al le y , 431 F . 3d 7 84, 788 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( not ing 1 that “ or din ar ily

w e w oul d e xpe ct

ase nte nc e w ith in the G uid el ine s r an ge to be reas on ab le ”). Ina ddi tio n, in se nte nc ing Cam ac ho- Be nit ez , the dis tr ic t c our t no te d hi s advis or y G uid el ine s r an ge and the se ct ion355 3( a) f ac tor s, c om

m en tin g in particular on the large am ountof drugs invo lved in th is case. T he district court al so e xpl ai ne d th at

the se nte nc e im

pose d w as not

gr eate r than ne ce ssary

to co m ply w iththe statut or

y pur pose s of se nte nc ing . T he dis tr ic t c ourt j udge w as not required to discuss all of the section 3553 (a) factors at the sentencing h earing. See United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 132 4, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (e xplaini ng that

“ noth ing in Booker or elsewhere r equires the district court to state on th e re cord that i t ha s e xpl ic itl y

c onsi de re d e ac h of

the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s or to dis cu ss each of the sec tion 3 553(a) fac tors”). A nd no thing in the record convinces us that Cam acho-Benitez’ s sentence wa s unreasonable in th e light of the section 35 53(a) fa ct or s. 2or

argue tha t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t c on sid e r s uf

fi c ie ntl y the se c tio n 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s, ind ic ate s th at, instead of r eviewing h i s s entenc e for rea sonablene ss, we should revie w Camac ho-B enitez’s challeng e on appe al to the rea sonablene ss of his se ntence only for plain err or. We ne ed not decide this iss ue bec ause, f

or the re asons discussed, Camac ho-B enitez’s claim that hi s sentenc e wa s unrea sonable fa ils under either standard of

revie w. 6 AFFIR MED.