FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 9, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1109 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 34 5- CR-T-1 7TGW UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us WALTER CANPAZ, 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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 9, 200 7) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appe llant W al te r Canpa z ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s se nte nc e of 135 m onths im pr iso nm en t i m

pose d f oll ow ing Canpa z’ s gu ilty ple a fo r (1 ) poss es sio n w ith int en t t o di str ibu te f

ive kil ogr am s or

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

ave sse l w ith in U nit ed S ta te s j ur isd ic tio n and ( 2) c onsp ir ac y to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te2

five kilogram s or m ore of coca ine while aboard a vessel within United States juri sd ic ti on , bo th in vi ol at io n o f 46 U.S.C. app . § 1 90 3. I. BACKGRO UND O n Augus t 5, 200 6, the U nit ed S ta te s C oa st Guard

obs er ve d a“ go- fa st” spe ed boat w ith out

na tio na lity

m ar kin gs l oc at ed

w es t of the G al ap ag os I slands in the E as te rnP ac if

ic . C oa st Guard

of fi ce rs obs er

ve d f our m enaboard

the ve sse l do n lif e j ac ke ts and j um

p in to the w at er . T he ve sse l w as sin kin g and o n f ir e. T he Co as t Gu ardth en ex ti ng ui sh edth e fi re an d re sc ue d t he crew. Upon ins pe ct ionof

the ve sse l, auth or iti es dis co ve re d th at the sc utt lin g va lve ha d b een op en edby the crew an d fo un d 7 33 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne on th e v es se l. All four m en we re arrested and broug ht to th e U nited States. A fter C anpaz pleaded guilt y , the district court adopted the pre-sentence investigation report. It fo und the a dj ust ed

of fe nse le ve l w as 33 and, be ca use Canpa z did

not have any pr ior c onvi ct ion s, the c ourt se nte nc ed him to 135 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t—

the low en d o f th e 1 35 to 16 8 m on th ran ge . II. A N A LY SI S Canpa z ap pe al s hi s se nte nc e on tw o gr ound s. F ir st, he arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by not gr an tin g am ino r- ro le r ed uc tio n f or his part ic ipatio n in the ove ra ll cr im ina l e nte rp ri se . S ec ond, Canpa z co nte nds that hi s se nte nc e is unr ea sona

ble and tha t w e cannot

pr es um e a se nte nc e is r ea sona ble sim ply be ca use it fell w ithin the sentencing Guidelines range. A s the basis of his “ unreasonable” argum ent, Canpaz asserts that the sentence re flects a se ntencing d isparity when3

c o mp ar e dw i ths e n t e n c e s o th e r d e f e n d an t s h a v e r e c e i v e df

o r c o mmi t t i n g th e s a me offense. Further, he argues that his status as an alien sub j ects him to a harsher se nte nc e than no n- al ie ns w oul d r ec ei ve be ca use of the c ust om s and i m

m igr at ion de ta in er. a. T he m ino r- rol e re duc tio n Canpaz cla im s that he was e ntitled to a m inor-role reduction because he w as le ss c ulp ab le than th e oth er part ic ipants , ha d no de ci sio n- m ak ing auth or ity , and ha d no sup er

vis or y r ole . Adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n of ade fe ndant’ s r ole in the of fe nse is a fi ndi ng o f fa ct

to be r ev ie w ed

onl y f or c le ar e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. D e V ar on, 175 F . 3d 9 30, 937 ( 11 Ci r. 199 9) ( enbanc ). T his is a fa ct -i nte nsi ve th inquir y and, “ [s ] o lo ng a s th e ba sis of the tr ia l c ourt’ s de ci sio n is sup porte d by the re co rd and d oe s no t i nvol ve am isa ppl ic at ionof

ar ule of law , ” w e w ill r ar el y co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco ur t’s d et erm in at io n i s cl earl y erro ne ou s. Id . at 9 45 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ne ed

not m ak e any

spe ci fi c fi ndi ngs oth er

than th e ult im at e de te rm inatio n of

the de fe ndant’ s r ole in the of fe nse . I d. a t 94 0. T he S en te nc ing G uid el ine s pr ovi de f or adownw ar d a dj ustm en t of the offense level “ for a def

endant who play s a part in com m itting the offense that m ak es hi m

subs ta nt ia ll y

les s cu lp ab le th an th e av erag e p art ic ip an t.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, c omm ent. ( n.3). Adefendant who “ is less culpable than m ost oth er part ic ipants , but

w hose r ole c oul d no t be de sc ri be d a s m ini m al ” is g rante d a tw o- le ve l a dj ustm en t a s am ino r part ic ipant. I d. , c om m en t. ( n. 5) . T he de fe ndant be ar s th e bur de n of

pr ovi ng a

m iti ga tin g r ole in the of

fe nse by apr ep onde ranc e of4

the e vid en ce . D e V ar on, 175 F . 3d at 93 9. Whe n de te rm ini ng a

de fe ndant’ s r ole in the of fe nse , the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust m easure the def

endant’ s role against the relevant conduct attributed to him . Id. at 940- 41. “ [W ] he re the r el ev an t c ondu ct a ttr ibu te d to ade fe ndant i s id en tic al to [h is] a ct ua l c ondu ct , [ he ] c annot

pr ove that [ he ] is en tit le d to am ino r ro le adj ustm ent sim

ply by point ing to som e broader c rim inal schem e in which [he] wa s a m in orpa rti ci pa ntbu t fo r whi ch [he ] was no t h el d a cco un tabl e.” Id . at 9 41 . Sim ilarly , the district court m ay m easure the def

endant’ s role against other part ic ipants w ho are ide nti fi ab le f ro m the e vid en ce and who w er e inv olv ed in the relevant conduct attributed to the defendant. Id. at 944. In the drug courier co nte xt, the a m ount

of dr ugs inv olv ed

is a m at er ia l c onsi de ratio n inthe a sse ssm en t of th e d efen da nt ’s rol e an d, i n s om e ci rcu m st an ces , m ay be a de te rm in at iv e fac to r. De Varo n, 1 75 F.3dat 9 43 . H er e, w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in de ny ing the reduction. Canpaz wa s held respons ible for only his own conduct, which included the poss ession o f over 700 kilog ram s of cocaine. H e has offe red nothing to m eet his bur de n to sho whe w as e nti tle d to ar ed uc tio n. A s th e gove rn m en t no te s, C anp a z d i dn o tar g u e b e f o r e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtth a to th e r d e f e n d an t s i nth e s a me j ur isd ic tio n have r ec ei ve d li ght er se nte nc es , and h e cannot nowsho wpla in e rr or based on th is inform ation in li ght of the large am ount of drugs for w hich he was he ld r es pons ibl e. D e V ar on, 175 F . 3d at 94 3. Re la te d to thi s m ino r- ro le arg um en t, Canpa z al so a sse rt s th at U . S. S. G . App.U ni te d S ta te s v . B oo k er , 5 43 U . S . 2 20 , 1 25 S . C t. 7 38 , 1 60 L . E d. 2d 6 21 ( 20 05 ). 1 5 C, A m en dm en ts 6 40 and 6 68, pr ovi de r el ie f. A m en dm en ts 6 40 and 6 68 p ro vid e fo r a m ax im

um of fe nse le ve l of

30, but the se a m en dm en ts o nly

appl y if the de fe ndant r ec ei ve d th e ro le r ed uc tio n. H er e, be ca

use the r ole r ed

uc tio n di d no t apply , A m endm ents 640 and 668 were not appl icable. b. R ea sona ble ness Canpaz next argues that his sentence is unreasonable and that th e court cannot pr es um e a re as ona

ble se nte nc e sim

ply be ca use it f el l w ith in the se nte nc ing G uid el ine s r an ge . C anpa z co nte nds that hi s se nte nc e is unr ea sona ble be ca use it re fl ec ts a se nte nc ing dis pari ty

w he n c om

pare d w ithse nte nc es oth er de fe ndants have rece ived for com

m itting the sam e offe nse. H e also argues that his status as ana lie n su

bj ec ts h im

to a hars he r se nte nc e be ca use of the c ust om s and im m igr at ionde ta ine r. A cc or din gly , he c la im s avari an ce und er § 35 53( a) w oul d cure the vio la tio n. W e re view a defendant’ s sentence for r easonableness. Martin, 455 F.3d at 1237 ; United State s v. W ining ear, 422 F.3d 1241 , 1244 (11th Cir. 2005); United St at es v. Cr aw fo rd , 407 F . 3d 1 174, 117 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . C anpa z be ar s th e bur de n of sho w ing that hi s se nte nc e is unr ea sona ble . U nit ed

S ta te s v. T al le y , 431 F. 3d 78 4, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). Ase nte nc e m ay

be r ev ie w ed

f or pr oc ed ur al or sub stanti ve unreasonableness. A sentence m ay be unreasonable if it is the product of a procedure that does not follo w B ooker’ s requirem ents, re gardless of the actual 16

se nte nc e. A ddi tio na lly , ase nte nc e m ay be sub stanti ve ly

unr ea sona

ble , r eg ar dle ss of the procedure used. United State s v. H unt, 459 F.3d 1180 , 1182 n.3 (11th Cir. 2007 ). Canpa z as se rt s th at w e ar e not

bound b y

our pr e- Bo oke r pr ec ed en t. B ut this ar gum en t i s in ac curate . A s th e gove rn m en t c or re ct ly not es , Canpa z co nf

la te s th e re as ona ble ne ss s tandard

w ithind ivi dua l se nte nc ing de ci sio ns. T his c ourt ha s he ld, after Booker, the sam e standards apply to indi vidu al sentencing decision s that existed before Booker. T hus, it is the ultim ate sentence, and not th e individ ual de ci sio ns, that w e re vie wf or r ea sona ble ne ss. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mart in, 455 F . 3d 12 27 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), 12 7 S .Ct. 2 95 3 (2 00 7) . H er e, the re w as no p ro ce dur al unr ea sona ble ne ss i n C anpa z’ s se nte nc e. T he co urt st at ed

that i t kn ewthe G uid el ine s w er e advis or y , and i t c onsi de re d bo th the Guidelines range and the § 3553 (a) sentencing factors. S ee T alley , 431 F. 3d at 786 (“ [A ] n a cknow le dgm en t by the dis tr ic t c ourt tha t i t ha s c onsi de re d th e defendant’ s argum ents and the factors in section 355 3(a) is sufficie nt und er Bo oke r. ”) ; Unit ed

S ta te s v. S co tt, 426 F . 3d 1 324, 132 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . T his court does not presum e re asonable a sentence w ithin the properly calculated G uid el ine s r an ge . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Cam

pbe ll, 200 7 W L 202 0170 , *5 ( 11th Ci r. Ju l 1 3, 2 00 7) ; Un it edSta te s v . Hun t, 4 59 F.3d11 80 , 11 85 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Re ce ntl y , how ev er , the U . S. S upr em e Co urt up he ld s uc h apr es um pti on, not ing that a se nte nc e, ind ep en de ntl y

c al cu la te d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt i n a cc or danc e w ith Bo oke r, that f

al ls w ith in the pr ope rl y

c al cu la te d G uid el ine s r an ge “ sig nif ic an tly7

increases the likelihoodthat the sentence is a re asonable one.” S ee United States v. Cam pbe ll, 200 7 W L 202 0170 a t *5 ( ci tin g R ita v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 551 U . S. –, 127 S.Ct. 2456 , 168 L. Ed. 2d 20 3 (2007)). R egardless of w hether the district court ap p l i edth e p re s u m

p t i o n , o nth i s re co rd , i nwh i ch th e c o u rtfo l l o we dBo o k er ’s req ui rem en ts , th ere was no pro cedur al un reas on ab le ne ss . Nor w as the sentence im

posed su bstantiv ely

unreasonable. T he court co nsi de re d th e se nte nc ing f ac tor s and the G uid el ine s r an ge and i m pose d a se nte nc e at

the lowe nd o f the G uid el ine s. G ive n th e am ount of dr ugs inv olv ed , the se nte nc e w as not

unr ea sona

ble . C anpa z ha s no t m et

his bur de n of

sho w ing his sentence w as unreasonable. Fi na lly , the c ourt’ s f

ai lur e to c onsi de r Canpa z’ s a lie n st at us w as not

pla inl y er ro ne ous, a s a lie n st at

us d oe s no t w ar

ra nt a r ed uc tio n. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. V el oz a, 83 F . 3d 3 80, 382 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( re j ec tin g do w nw ar d de part ur e ba se d on status a s an a lie n) , ove rr

ule d onoth er

gr ound s, U nit ed

S ta te s v. Cam

pbe ll, 181 F. 3d 12 63 (11th Cir. 1999 ). T hus, we conclude that the sentence im posed was reas on ab le . III. CO NC LUS ION Ac cordingly , w e AFFIRM th e d eci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t.