### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Se pt e m be r 30, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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. 04- 15158 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 3 1 1 - CR - J LK 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 G E R M A N N G U I L L E R M O G O O D I N G M U N O Z , 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 30, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d B L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G e r m a nn G ui l l e r m o G oodi ng M uñoz appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e f ori m por t a t i on i n t o th e U n i t e d St a t e s o f o n e k i l o g r a m o rmo r e o f h e r o i n i n v i o l a t i o n o f

2 1 U . S. C.2

§§ 95 2(a) and 9 60 (b)( 1). G oo di ng ar gu es for the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l thatun der U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly i m p o sed a G u i d el i n e-m an d at ed m i n i m u m t erm o f i m p ri so n m en t . G o o d i n g al so c o n t e n d s th e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r te rr e d i n d e n y i n g a r o l e r e d u c t i o n u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 3 B 1. 2. W e a ff

i rm G oo di ng ’ s s ent ence .

I . DI S C US S I ON A . B o o ker In B oo ke r , i s s ue d a f

t e rG oodi ng w a s s e nt e nc e d, the S upr e m e C our the l d the G u id e lin e s a r e a n a d v is o ry , r a th e rth a n a m a n d a to ry , r e g im e . See B oo ke r , 1 2 5 S. C t . at76 4– 65 . U nd er B oo ke r , th ere are tw o k i n d s o f sen t en ci n g erro rs: const i tut i on al and st atut ory. A const i tut i on al error i s “ the use of e xtra -ver di ct e nha nc e m e nt s t o r e a c h a [ G ] ui de l i ne s r e s ul ttha ti s bi ndi ng on the s e nt e nc i ng j ud ge; the error i s the m andat ory nature of the [G ] ui del i nes once the [G ] ui del i nes ra ng e has been det erm i ned. ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . She l ton , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) ( quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A s t a tut or y e rr oroc c ur s w he n a di stri ctcourtj ud ge se nt ence s adefe nd ant“ un der am andat ory G ui del i nes s chem e, even i n the abse nce of a Si xth A m endm entvi ol at i on . ” I d. a t 1 3 3 0

– 3 1 . W e r evi ew for pl ai n err or w hen a defendantdi d n otobj ec tt o the G ui del i nes un der B lake l

y v . W as hi ngton , 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 (200 4), or B oo ke ri n the di stri ct3

c o u r t. U ni t ed Stat es v. R odri

gu ez , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed 1 2 5 S . C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . A n ap p e lla te c o u r t m a y n o t c o rr e c t a n e rr o rth e d e f e n d a n t f a ile d to r a i s e i n the di s tr i c tc our tunl e s s the r e i s : ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd (3) thataf

fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. If al l three cond i t i on s a re m et , an appel l at e c ou rtm ay then exerci se i t s di sc re t i on t o n ot i ce a f orfe i t ed erro r, b u to n l y i f (4 ) th e erro r seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, i n t eg ri ty, o r p u b l i c rep u t at i o n o f j u d i ci al p ro ceed i n g s. I d. at12 98 (quo t at i on s a nd ci t at i on s om i tt ed). 1 . C ons t i tut i onal

E r r or T hi s c as e pre se nt s no con st i tut i on al error und er B oo ke rb e c a u s e G o o d in g d id notr e c e i ve a s e nt e nc e e nha nc e d on the ba s i s of j udi c i a l f

a c t f i ndi ng a s t o the a m ountof

he r oi n i nvol ve d i n hi s c r i m e . G oodi ng pl e d gui l ty t o the c ha r ge of i m por t i ng one ki l ogr a m orm or e of he r oi n. T he P S I us e d the drug qua nt i ty of 2. 49 1 k i l og ra m s, as det erm i ned b y the D E A , and cal cul at ed hi s bas e off ense l evel un der U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(c) (4), w hi ch es t abl i shed an offense l evel for c on du ct in v o lv in g b e tw e e n o n e a n d th r e e k ilo g r a m s o f h e r o in . T h e c o u r t s u b s e q u e n tly a dopt e d the P S I ’ s s e nt e nc i ng c a l c ul a t i on. G oodi ng di d notr e c e i ve a s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on j udi c i a l f a c t f i ndi ng be c a us e the drug qua nt i ty a dopt e d by the c our tr e s ul t e d i n the l ow e s tpos s i bl e ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l unde rthe gui de l i ne s f orMoreover, Goodingadmitted to the drugquantity at his p l ea co l loquy

and did not object 1 to the quantity of drug s listed in the PS Irepor t. Shelton , 400 F.3d at 1330 (findingno constitutional error where de fenda

nt admitted at his plea colloquy to the fac ts used to enhanc e h i s s en tenceand did not object to the fac tual statements in the PSI ). We rejec t Gooding’ s argumen t th at a conflict e x ists between the plain-error standard 2 applied in our pre -Booker ca s es an d th e p l ai n -e rr o r s t an d ar d

ap p l i edi nca s es fo l l o wi n g Booker . See Rodriguez , 3 9 8 F. 3 d

at1 2 9 9

– 3 0 0 (qu o t i n g Jones v. United States , 119 S. Ct . 2090 (1999)) . 4 the c ha r ge t o w hi c h G oodi ng pl e d. 1 2 . Statutor

y E r r or A lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c o m m it a S ix th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n , it com m i tt ed st atut ory e rr or un der B oo ke rw hen i tse nt ence d G oo di ng un der a m a n d a to ry G u id e lin e r e g im e . U ni t e d Stat e s v . D ac us , 40 8 F . 3d 68 6, 68 9 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). U nd er B oo ke r , ap p l i cat i o n o f th e G u i d el i n es as m an d at o ry m eet s th e fi rst tw o p r o n g s o f

p la in - e rr o rr e v ie w . I

d. A s to th e th ir d p r o n g o f th e p la in - e rr o rte s t, th e b u rd en i s o n th e d efen d an tt o d em o n strat e th e p l ai n erro r “ affects [his] subst ant i al ri gh t s, ” a nd the error “ ac tual l y di d m ake adi ff er ence . ” R odri

gu ez , 398 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 8 . I n ap p ly in g th e th ir d p r o n g , w e a s k “w h e th e rth e r e is a r e a s o n a b le prob abi l i ty of adi ff

er entre sul ti f the [G ] ui del i nes had been appli ed i n an adv i sory i nst ea d o f bi nd i ng fa shi on by the se nt enci ng j ud ge i n thi s c as e. ” I d. at13 00 . If

“ [w ] e j ustdo n’ tkn ow ” w hether the defendantw ou l d h ave r ec ei ved a l es se r s e n te n c e if

th e [ G ]u id e lin e s h a d b e e n a d v is o ry , th e d e f e n d a n t h a s n o t m e t h is b u r d e n o f

s h o w in g p r e

ju d ic e . I d . a t1301. 25

G oodi ng pr e s e nt s no e vi de nc e s ugge s t i ng the s e nt e nc i ng j udge w oul d ha ve i ss ued a di ff

er entse nt ence i f the G ui del i nes w er e a dv i sory . G oo di ng on l y a rgues the m a nda t ory na tur e of the gui de l i ne s pr e

j udi c e d hi s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s by prec l ud i ng the se nt enci ng j ud ge fr om consi deri ng other m i t i gat i ng fa ct ors r e ga r di ng hi s pe r s ona l hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s . H ow e ve r , G oodi ng pr ovi de s no e vi de nc e s how i ng a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha tc ons i de r a t i on of the s e m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s w oul d ha ve r e s ul t e d i n a di f f e r e nts e nt e nc e . T he r e a r e no c om m e nt s i n the r e c or d by the s e nt e nc i ng j udge i ndi c a t i ng f rus tr a t i on w i th the G ui de l i ne s ortha tthe courtw ou l d i ss ue a l es se r s ent ence i f the G ui del i nes w er e notm andat ory. T he fa ct the se nt enci ng courthere i ss ued a se nt ence atthe bo tt om of the G ui del i ne ra ng e, w ith o u t m o r e , is in s u f

f ic ie n t to s a tis f

y G o o d in g ’s b u r d e n u n d e rth e th ir d p r o n g . U ni t e d Stat e s v . F i e lds , 408 F . 3d 1356, 1361 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . S i nc e G oodi ng p r e s e n ts n o e v id e n c e s h o w in g a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t w o u ld ha ve i s s ue d a di f

f e r e nts e nt e nc e unde ra n a dvi s or y G ui de l i ne s s y s t e m , G oodi ng f a ils to s a tis f

y h is b u r d e n u n d e rth e th ir d p r o n g o f th e p la in - e rr o ra n a ly s is . B . Mi nor - r ol e R e duc t i on W e h a v e h e ld th a t “a 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 is a f

in d in g o f f a c t to b e r e v ie w e d o n ly f o rc le a re rr o r .” U

ni t ed Stat es v . D e V ar on , 175 F . 3d 930, 937 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( e n ba nc ) . T he pr opone ntof the6

red u ct i o n al w ays b ears th e b u rd en o f p ro v i n g th e m i t i g at i n g ro l e i n th e o ffen se b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . I

d. a t 9 3 9 . I n d e te r m in in g th e d e f e n d a n t’s r o le in the offens e, the “ deci si on fa l l s w i thi n the soun d d i sc re t i on of the di stri ctcourt . ” I d. at94 5. “ S o l on g as the basi s of the tri al court ’ s dec i si on i s s up po rt ed by the re cord a nd doe s noti nvol ve a m i s appl i c a t i on of a rul e of l a w , w e be l i e ve tha ti tw i l l be r a r e f o ra n ap p e lla te c o u r t to c o n c lu d e th a t th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n is cl ea rl y e rr on eous. ” I

d. I n d e te r m in in g w h e th e ra r o le r e d u c tio n is w a rr a n te d , a d is tr ic t c o u r t “s h o u ld b e in fo rm ed b y tw o p rin cip les d isce rn ed fr o m th e G u id elin es : first, th e d ef en d an t’ s r ol e i n the r e l e va ntc onduc tf orw hi c h [ he ] ha s be e n he l d a c c ount a bl e a ts e nt e nc i ng, a nd, s e c ond, [ hi s ] r ol e a s c om pa r e d t o tha tof othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s i n [ hi s ] r e l e va nt cond uct . ” D e V

ar on , 17 5 F . 3d at94 0. U nd erthe fi rs tpron g o f the D e V ar on a na l y s i s , “ the di s tr i c tc our tm us ta s s e s s w he the rthe de f e nda nti s a m i noror m in im a l p a r tic ip a n t in r e la tio n to th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t a ttr ib u te d to th e d e f e n d a n t in ca l cul at i ng [hi s] base offe nse l evel . ” I d. a t941. U nde rthe s e c ond pr ong of D e V ar on , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m e a s u r e s th e d e f e n d a n t’s c u lp a b ility in c o m p a r is o n to th a t o f o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts in th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. I d. a t944. I n thi s a na l y s i s the c o u r t “s h o u ld lo o k to o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts o n ly to th e e x te n t th a t th e y a r e id e n tif iab le fr om the evi dence” a nd “ m ay consi der onl y tho se part i ci pant s w ho w er e i nv ol ved7

i n the re l evantcond uctattri bu t ed t o the defendant . ” I d. I n the drug c our i e rc ont e xt , w e ha ve s t a t e d the r e i s no pr e s um pt i on drug c o u r ie r s a r e o ra r e n o t m in o ro rm in im a l p a r tic ip a n ts . I d. at94 3. T he di stri ctcourt m us ta s s e s s a l l of

the f a c t s pr oba t i ve of

the de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n the r e l e va nt c o n d u c t, in c lu d in g th e d e f e n d a n t’s s ta tu s a n d a s s ig n e d ta s k s in th e s c h e m e . I d. at 9 4 2

– 4 3 . T h e am o u n to f d ru g s i m p o rt ed

— w h i ch ex ceed s tw o k i l o g ram s h ere— i s a m a te r ia l c o n s id e r a tio n in a s s e s s in g th e d e f e n d a n t’s r o le in th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. I d. at94 3. “ Indeed, because the am ou ntof drug s i n a couri er ’ s posse ss i on — w hether ve ry l a r ge orve ry s m a l l

— m a y be the be s ti ndi c a t i on of the m a gni tude of

the c our i e r ’ s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the c r i m i na l e nt e rpr i s e , [ thi s C our tdoe s ] notf or e c l os e the pos s i bi l i ty tha ta m ountof drugs m a y be di s pos i t i ve — i n a nd of i t s e l f

— i n the extre m e c as e. ” I

d. In the drug couri ercont ext , som e of the re l evantfa ctual c ons i de r a t i ons i nc l ude “ a m ountof drugs , f a i rm a r ke tva l ue of

drugs , a m ountof m on ey pai d t o the couri er , equi ty i nt er es ti n the drug s, rol e i n p l anni ng the cr i m i nal sc hem e, and rol e i n the di stri bu t i on . ” I d. a t945. T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha tG oodi ng di d notpl a y a m i noror m in im a l r o le in th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t o f h e r o in im p o r ta tio n w a s n o t c le a r ly erroneou s. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n con cl ud i ng un der the fi rs tpron g o f De V ar on tha tthe c onduc tf

orw hi c h G oodi ng w a s he l d a c c ount a bl e , i m por t a t i on ofFur thermore , the district c ourt’s statement that Gooding ’s objection to theref usal to grant 3 a rolereduc tion “has t o be” denied since his re levant conduc t was equivalent to his actual conduc t is p la us ibly int e rp rete d a s an in dic atio n th at the c ourt c on c lude d, ba se d o n a

n a pp lic atio n o f t

hefac ts of Gooding’s c ase to the standa rd in De Varon , the reduc tion had to be denied. This statement by the court is ambiguous at best and insufficient evidencethe cour t misapplied or misint erpreted the Guide lin e s. 8 one ki l ogr a m orm or e of he r oi n, w a s i de nt i c a l t o hi s a c tua l c onduc t . W hi l e the di stri ctcourtdi d n otm ent i on the se cond pron g o f the De V ar on a n a ly s is , it is po ss i bl e on t hi s r ec ord for the courtt o h ave c on cl ud ed G oo di ng ’ s r ol e a s acouri er r e nde r e d hi m e qua l l y c ul pa bl e t o “ D a n, ” the onl y othe ri de nt i f i e d pa r t i c i pa nti n the s c h e m e . Se e D e V

ar on , 1 7 5 F .3 d a t 9 4 6 ( f in d in g o n s im ila rf

a c ts th a t it is re as on abl e t o con cl ud e the couri erw as equal l y c ul pabl e a s the re crui t eri n an i m po rt at i on sc hem e) . T he di stri ctcourtfurther not ed thatG oo di ng w as conv i ct ed of i m po rt i ng a s ub st ant i al am ou ntof heroi n. T hu s, the evi dence i n the re cord pr ovi de s a s uf

f i c i e ntba s i s f

orthe c our t ’ s de c i s i on t o de ny a r ol e r e duc t i on. 3 I I . C ON C L US I ON T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otpl ai nl y e rrun der B oo ke r . A dd i t i on al l y, the di stri ct c our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n de ny i ng G oodi ng’ s r e que s tf ora r ol e r e duc t i on. AF F I R ME D.9

T J O F L A T , C i r c ui tJ udge , s pe c i a l l y c onc ur r i ng: A s th e c o u r t s ta te s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d B o o k e rs ta tu to ry e rr o rth a t is pl a i n, butappe l l a ntha s notm e tthe thi r d pr ong of R odr i gue z ’ s pl a i n- e rr ort e s t ; he ha s note s t a bl i s he d “ a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty ” tha tthe c our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d a l es se r s ent ence had i ttre at ed the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes a s a dv i sory ra ther than m a nda t ory . A nt e a t5. T ha ti s , the di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o utt e r , a ts e nt e nc i ng, w o rd s, I cal l th em “ m ag i c w o rd s, ” i n d i cat i n g th atb u tfo r th e m an d at o ry g u i d el i n es, the c our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d a l e s s e rs e nt e nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T hom ps on, N o. 0 4 - 1 2 2 1 8 2 0 0 5 W L 2 0 9 9 7 8 4 , a t * 1 7 - 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( T jo f la t, J ., d is s e n tin g ) . T h e c o u r t is b o u n d b y R o d r ig u e z ’s m a g ic - w o r d s te s t. I th e r e f o r e c o n c u rin i t s j u d g m en t . W ere w e w ri t i n g o n a cl ean sl at e, I w o u l d rej ectR o d ri g u ez’ s t est b e c a u s e , a s I e x p la in e d in T h o m p s o n , it “f o s te r s d is r e s p e c t f

o rth e ru le o f

la w . See 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( “ T he c our t , i n de t e r m i ni ng the pa r t i c ul a rs e nt e nc e t o be i m po se d, shal l consi der the need for the se nt ence i m po se d . . . t o p rom ot e r es pect f orthe l a w . . . . ” ) . ” I d. , a t* 18.