FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 20, 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. 07- 10559 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 3 9 2 - C R - T - 2 3 - E AJ 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 J O S E R E I N A - S A L A S , 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 20, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The appendix to Title 46 containing the subject provisions w as repe aled eff ective 6 O ctober 1 2006, and re enacted as 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503, 70506, with no relevant chang es. See Pub. L . No. 109- 134, 120 Stat. 1485. 2 J o s e R e in a - S a la s ap p e a ls th e 1 3 5 - m o n th s e n te n c e s im p o s e d f o llo w in g h is gui l ty pl e at o c ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s a nd pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but 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 tt o U ni t ed S t at es 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 A p p . U . S. C. § § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( g ) , ( j ) , 2 1 U . S. C. 1 § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( ii) . B e c au s e R e in a - S a la s w a s h e ld r e s p o n s ib le o n ly f o rth e q u a n tity o f d ru g s w i th w h i ch h e w as p erso n al l y i n v o l v ed an d fai l ed t o sh o w th ath e w as l ess c u lp ab le th a n o th e rid e n tif iab le p a r tic ip a n ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin det erm i ni ng thathe di d n otpl aya m i no r or m i ni m al rol e i n the offens e. F urther, be c aus e the i m pos i t i on of R e i na - S a l a s ’ s s e nt e nc e r e f l e c t e d c ons i de r a t i on of

m a ny of the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, R ei na-S al as has notshow n thathi s s ent ence at th e lo w e n d o f

th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s p r o c e d u r a lly o rs u b s ta n tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab l e . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D R e in a - S a la s w a s in d ic te d o n a n d p le d g u ilty to o n e c o u n t o f c o n s p ir a c y to pos s e s s w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of am i xtur e c ont a i ni ng c o c a in e w h ile ab o a r d av 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 , in vi ol at i on of 46 A pp . U . S . C . §§ 19 03 (a ), (g), (j ), and 2 1 U . S . C . § 9 60 (b)( 1)(B )( i i ),3

a nd one c ountof

pos s e s s i on w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of am i xtur e c ont a i ni ng c oc a i ne w hi l e aboa r d ave s s e l s ubj e c tt o the j ur i s di c t i on of the U n i t e d St a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 4 6 A p p . U . S. C. § § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( g ) , a n d 2 1 U . S. C. § 9 60 (b)( 1)(B )( i i ). A cc ordi ng t o the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), R e i na - S a l a s a nd c ode f

e nda nt s L i no J a i m e H ol gui n- M e r o, R ona l d A rm a ndo L ut i nS ol i s, B ernardo R ei na-S al as , and Ji m m y R i as go s w er e m anni ng a go-fa stbo at carryi ng 58 9 k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne w hen the bo atw as i nt er ce pt ed by the U ni t ed S t a t e s C oa s tG ua r d c utt e rB outw e l l . W he n c onf r ont e d by the B outw e l l , the d e f e n d a n ts b e g a n th r o w in g b a le s o f c o c a in e in to th e w a te ra n d r e f u s e d to c o m p ly w i th or de r s t o s t op. U l t i m a t e l y , the B outw e l l e m pl oy e d i t s . 50 c a l i be rm a c hi ne guns t o di s abl e the go- f a s tboa t ’ s e ngi ne s . H ol gui n- M e r o w a s the c apt a i n of the vess el and L ut i n-S ol i s w as the drug re pres ent at i ve. Jose R ei na-S al as and the other tw o d e f e n d a n ts w e r e c r e w m e m b e r s . I n the P S I , the pr oba t i on of f i c e rr e c om m e nde d aba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

38, U. S . S . G. § 2 D1 . 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) , atwo - l e v e l s a f e ty - v a l v e r e d u c t i o n , U. S . S . G. § 2 D1 . 1 ( b ) ( 9 ) , a n d ath r e e - l e v e l a c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i ty r e d u c t i o n , U. S . S . G. §§ 3E 1. 1(a) , (b), for at ot al offe nse l evel of 33 . T he re com m ended g ui del i nes rang e w as 13 5-16 8 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent , w i th a st atut ory m axi m um of l i fe im p r is o n m e n t. R e in a - S a la s o b je c te d to th e P S I ’s f

a ilu r e to a s s e s s am itig a tin g - r o le4

re du ct i on , and the prob at i on offi ce r r es po nd ed thatR ei na-S al as w as no tso ent i t l ed be c aus e he pl a y e d avi t a l r ol e i n the c ons pi r a c y and w a s he l d a c c ount abl e onl y f or th e d ru g s r e la te d to th is p a r tic u la rv e n tu r e . A t s e n te n c in g , R e in a - S a la s a r g u e d th a t h e s h o u ld r e c e iv e am itig a tin g - r o le r e d u c tio n b e c au s e h e w a s o n ly ac o u r ie rw h o s e rv e d n o r e a l p u rp o s e o th e rth a n to as si sti n m ov i ng drug s. H e a ss ert ed thatthe l ow es t -l evel rol e s ho ul d b e t aken as the st art i ng po i nt . R ei na-S al as cont ended thatm any other s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed d e f e n d a n t s h a d r e c e i v e d s e n t e n c e s l o we rth a n th e P S I ’ s r e c o m m e n d e d r a n g e . He a l s o a r gue d f

oragui de l i ne s de pa r tur e ba s e d on hi s f i na nc i a l s i tua t i on a nd the di ff i cul t i es hi s f

am i l y e xp er i ence d i n C ol om bi a. T he go vernm entre spon ded that R e i na - S a l a s s houl d notr e c e i ve am i t i ga t i ng- r ol e r e duc t i on be c aus e he w a s be i ng he l d r e s pons i bl e onl y f

orthe drugs aboa r d hi s ve s s e l , the qua nt i ty of c oc a i ne i n v o l v ed w as so g reat , an d h e w as as cu l p ab l e as th e o th er p erso n s o n th e g o -fast boa t . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tR e i na - S a l a s bor e the bur de n of pr ovi ng tha the w as subst ant i al l y l es s c ul pabl e than the avera ge part i ci pantand thathe had fai l ed t o do s o. T he di s tr i c tc our tnot e d tha tthe qua nt i ty of drugs c oul d i t s e l f

be det erm i nat i ve i n thi s type of c as e. T he di stri ctcourtst at ed thati tconsi dere d s e nt e nc e s i n s i m i l a rc a s e s i nvol vi ng “ the s e t on qua nt i ty tr a ns por t s of c oc a i ne ” t o be “r e m a rk ab ly c o n s is te n t.” R 3 a t 1 0 - 1 1 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d ,5

S om e de f

e nda nt s c oope r a t e ; s om e don’ t . S om e ha ve r e a s ons t o ha ve the i rr ol e a dj us t e d upw a r d . . . a nd s om e don’ t . F r om t i m e t o t i m e f or reaso n s th atare n o ttyp i cal t o th e cases, b u tassessed o n a case t o case ba s i s by the pr e s i di ng j udge , s om e a typi c a l a l l ow a nc e w i l l be m a de f orc oope r a t i on, f

r a nkl y , of

t e n due t o thr e a t s a nd othe rc om pl i c a t i ng fact o rs i n v o l v i n g th e d efen d an to r th e d efen d an t ’ s fam i l y. I w o u ld n o te th a t in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th e p a r ity th a t is ac hi eved i n sent enci ng thatse nt enci ng di ff er ence s w hi ch ar e attri bu t abl e t o p roper gui del i ne ca l cul at i on s or proper departures ar e n o t “d is p a r itie s ” . . . . I d. a t11. R ei na-S al as then argued for a bel ow -gui del i nes s ent ence , as se rt i ng that s im ila rd e f

e n d a n ts h a d r e c e iv e d s u c h s e n te n c e s . H e a l so cont ended that d e f e n d a n t s i n h i s s i tu a t i o n r a r e l y r e c e i v e d c r e d i t( i n th e f o rm o f aFe d . R. Cr i m. P. 3 5 m o tio n ) f

o rla te rc o o p e r a tio n le a d in g to th e e x tr a d itio n o f o th e rc o n s p ir a to r s . T he di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d R e i na - S a l a s t o at e rm of i m pr i s onm e ntof

135 m o n th s o n b o th c o u n ts to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly . T he di stri ctcourtst at ed thati thad co n si d ered th e 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors, th e g u i d el i n es, an d p u b l i sh ed p o l i ci es, an d fo u n d th atth e sen t en ce i m p o sed w as su ffi ci en t , b u tn o tg reat er th an n ecessary, t o a c hi e ve the s t a tut ory purpos e s of s e nt e nc i ng. R e i na - S a l a s obj e c t e d tha tthe se nt ence w as un re as on abl e bec ause “ the gu i del i nes c al cul at i on i s notre as on abl e. ” R 3 at17 -18. T he di stri ctcourtst at ed thati tconsi dere d the se nt ence re as on abl e a t th a t6

the ove rw he l m i ng m a

j or i ty of the s e t on qua nt i ty c onve y or s of hi gh pur i ty c oc a i ne i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s a r e s e nt e nc e d a torabout– a t135 m o n th s as a m att er o f fact . M o sto f th em v aryi n g fro m th ato n l y as a re sul tof coop er at i on w i th the U ni t ed S t at es i n a re sul t i ng [§] 5K 1 o r [ ] s om e de t e rm i na t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o the i ri ndi vi dua l a c t i vi t i e s w hi l e on th e v e s s e l. I d. a t18. I I . DI S CUS S I ON Re i n a - Sa l a s a r g u e s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc l e a r l y e rr e d i n d e n y i n g h i m a m itig a tin g - r o le r e d u c tio n b e c au s e h e “w a s m e r e ly ac o u r ie r ,” h is “s o le ta s kw a s to be on the boa tw hi c h c ont a i ne d the c a r go, ” he ha d no r ol e i n pl a nni ng the tr i p, a nd o th e r s w e r e in v o lv e d w ith th e d ru g s w h o h a ds u p e r io rr o le s in th e c o n s p ir a c y . A ppe l l a nt ’ s br i e f

a t8- 9. H e a s s e r t s tha t , i n c ontr a ve nt i on of U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R od ri gu ez D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d 93 0 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc), the di stri ctcourt c ons i de r e d ne i the rhi s r ol e a s c om pa r e d t o othe r s i n the ve s s e l northe f a c ttha the had n o rol e i n p l anni ng the conspi ra cy . R ei na-S al as cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourt f a i l e d t o “ r e c onc i l e ” hi s s e nt e nc e w i th thos e of s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d de f

e nda nt s w ho re ce i ved m i no r- rol e r educt i on s. A pp el l ant ’ s bri ef at9-10 . H e f

urther a rgues that th e lo w e s t- le v e l r o le s h o u ld b e th e s ta r tin g p o in t f o rth is a n a ly s is , a n d th a t it vi ol a t e s § 3553( b) ( 1) t o r e qui r e the de f e nda ntt o di s pr ove the “ a ggr a va t i ng” f a c t or o f h a v i n g n o r o l e a d

j u s tm e n tap p l y . I d . a t1 1 . R e i n a - S a l a s a l s o a s s e r t s th a twe shou l d fol l ow U ni t ed S t at es v. D orvi l , 78 4 F . S up p. 84 9 (S . D . F l a. 19 91 ), i n w hi ch7

the di s tr i c tc our tf

ound tha tthe c r e w m e n on ave s s e l i m por t i ng c oc a i ne w e r e not c ru c ia l to th e c o n s p ir a c y a n d g r a n te d f o u r - le v e l m itig a tin g - r o le r e d u c tio n s to th e m .

“ W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on a nd i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes de nov o and i t s f ac tual fi nd i ng s f

or cl ear e rr or. ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. S m i th, 480 F . 3d 1277, 1278 ( 11th C i r . ) , pe t i t i on f orc e r t . f i l e d, ( U . S . J une 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( N o . 0 6 - 1 1 9 0 1 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te rm in a tio n o f ad e f e n d a n t’s r o le i n the of fe nse i s afa ctual det erm i nat i on thatw e r evi ew for c l ear e rr or . R od ri gu ez D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t937. A d e f e n d a n t w h o is “p la in ly a m o n g th e le a s t c u lp ab le o f th o s e in v o lv e d in the c onduc tof

agr oup, ” a nd w ho ha s a“ l a c k of know l e dge orunde r s t a ndi ng of the s c ope a nd s truc tur e of

the e nt e rpr i s e a nd of

the a c t i vi t i e s of

othe r s ” i s e nt i t l e d t o a f o u r - le v e l r e d u c tio n f

o rh is m in im a l r o le . U .S .S .G. § 3 B 1 .2 ( a ) , c o m m e n t. ( n .4 ) . A d e f e n d a n t “w h o is 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 , 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” is e n title d to atw o - le v e l r e d u c tio n f o rh is m in o rr o le . U . S . S . G. § 3B 1. 2( b) , c om m e nt . ( n. 5) . T he de f e nda ntbe a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng a m i t i g a t i n g r o l e i n th e o f f e n s 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 . R o d r i g u e z De V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t939. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t p e r f

o rm s atw o - p r o n g te s t in m a k in g am itig a tin g - r o le det erm i nat i on . Id. at94 0-45 . “ F i rs tand forem ost , the di stri ctcourtm ustm ea sure8

th e d e f e n d a n t’s r o le 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 ] h a s b e e n h e ld a c c ount abl e . ” I d. a t940. “ [ W ] he r e the r e l e va ntc onduc ta ttr i but e d t o ade f e nda nt i s i de nt i c a l t o [ hi s ] a c tua l c onduc t , [ he ] c a nnotpr ove tha t[ he ] i s e nt i t l e d t o am i nor rol e a dj ustm entsi m pl y by poi nt i ng t o som e broader c ri m i nal sc hem e i n w hi ch [he] w a s am in o rp ar 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 a c c o u n tab le .” I d . a t 9 4 1 .

“ [ W ] he n adrug c our i e r ’ s r e l e va ntc onduc ti s l i m i t e d t o [ hi s ] ow n a c tof i m po rt at i on , a di stri ctcourtm ayl egi t i m at el y c on cl ud e thatthe couri erpl ay ed an i m po rt antor es se nt i al rol e i n the i m po rt at i on of tho se drug s. ” I d. at94 2-43 . In a ddi t i on, the qua nt i ty of drugs i nvol ve d “ i s am a t e r i a l c ons i de r a t i on i n a s s e s s i ng a de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n [ hi s ] r e l e va ntc onduc t . ” I d. a t943. I n a n e xtr e m e c a s e , the qua nt i ty of

drugs i n ac our i e r ’ s pos s e s s i on m a y be di s pos i t i ve i n a nd of i t s e l f . I d. In the se cond pron g, the di stri ctcourtm aycom pare the defendant ’ s c on du ct to th a t o f th e o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts in th e c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s h e ld a c c o u n tab le . I d . a t 9 4 4 . I n m a k in g th is c o m p a r is o n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld c ons i de rothe rpar t i c i pa nt s onl y t o the e xt e nttha tthe y a r e i de nt i f i abl e or d is c e rn ab le f

r o m th e e v id e n c e . I d . A d d itio n a lly, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y o n ly

“ consi der[ ] tho se part i ci pant s w ho w er e i nv ol ved i n the re l evantcond uctattri bu t ed to th e d e f

e n d a n t. T h e c o n d u c t o f p a r tic ip a n ts in a n y la r g e rc r im in a l c o n s p ir a c y is i rr e l e va nt . ” I d. E ve n i f ade f e nda ntc a n s how tha thi s r ol e w a s l e s s tha n tha tof9

o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts , th is “m a y n o t b e d is p o s itiv e o f r o le in th e o f

f e n s e , s in c e it is pos s i bl e tha tnone a r e m i nororm i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nt s . ” I d.

“ In m aki ng the ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of the defendant ’ s r ol e i n the offens e, th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e h a s n o d u ty to m a k e a n y s p e c if ic s u b s id ia ry f

a c tu a l f in d in g s . S o l on g as the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on i s s up po rt ed by the re cord and the court cl earl y r es ol ves any di sput ed fa ctual i ss ues, a s i m pl e s t at em entof the di stri ct court ’ s c on cl usi on i s s uffi ci ent . ” I d. at93 9 (ci t at i on om i tt ed, em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ); s e e i d. a t939- 40. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n de t e rm i ni ng tha tR e i na - S a l a s di d not pl aya m i no r or m i ni m al rol e i n the drug -tra ff i cki ng conspi ra cy . A s R ei na-S al as w as a drug cou ri erw ho w as on l y hel d res po nsi bl e f or the drug s w i th w hi ch he w as pe r s ona l l y i nvol ve d, the r e c or d s uppor t s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on tha the pl a y e d a n e s s e nt i a l r ol e i n the tr a f f i c ki ng of thos e drugs , s e e R odr i gue z D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t942- 43. T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o pe rm i s s i bl y c ons i de r e d a s as i gni f i c a nt f a c to rth e la r g e q u a n tity o f c o c a in e th a t R e in a - S a la s w a s p e r s o n a lly r e s p o n s ib le f o r . S e e i d. a t943; W i th r e ga r ds t o the s e c ond pr ong of the R odr i gue z D e V a r on a na l y s i s , the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y f ound tha tR e i na - S a l a s di d nots how tha the w a s s u b s ta n tia lly le s s c u lp ab le th a n th e a v e r a g e p a r tic ip a n t. R ei na-S al as pres ent ed no e vi de nc e a s t o how hi s r ol e w a s di f f e r e ntf r om tha tof

hi s f e l l ow c r e w m e n, a nd10

the cond uctof part i ci pant s i n any l ar ger c on spi ra cyw as i rr el evant , se e R od ri gu ez D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t944. F u r th e r , R e in a - S a la s ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to e x p r e s s ly d is c u s s h is la c ko f

in v o lv e m e n t in th e p la n n in g o f th e o p e r a tio n o re x p r e s s ly com pare hi s r ol e t o thatof hi s f el l ow cr ew m en i s m i spl ac ed. B ec ause there w er e no di sput ed fa ctual i ss ues and the di stri ctcourt ’ s ul t i m at e c on cl usi on w as su p p o rt ed i n th e reco rd , th e d i stri ctco u rtw as n o treq u i red t o ex p ressl y ad d ress s ubs i di a ry f

a c tua l i s s ue s . S e e i d. a t939- 40. L i ke w i s e , hi s c ont e nt i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n pl a c i ng the bur de n of pr oof on hi m i s t o no a va i l , a s the d e f e n d a n t h a s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g th a t h e q u a lif

ie s f o ram itig a tin g - r o le r e duc t i on. S e e i d. a t939. F i na l l y , w he the rornotothe rde f e nda nt s m a y ha ve r e c e i ve d m i t i ga t i ng- r ol e r e duc t i ons i n othe rc a s e s i s i rr e l e va ntt o de t e rm i ni ng w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e rr e d in its f a c tu a l f in d in g th a t R e in a - S a la s d id notha ve am i t i ga t i ng r ol e i n thi s c a s e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A gui rr e , 204 F e d. A p p x . 7 9 6 , 7 9 8 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ W e fai l t o see h o w fi n d i n g s as t o d efen d an t s’ r ol e s i n af

i f t e e n- y e a r - ol d c a s e f

r om the S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da[ D orvi l ]

— or e ve n i n m or e r e c e ntc a s e s f r om the M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

— ha ve a ny be a r i ng on the prop ri ety of afi nd i ng i n [thi s] ca se . ”) T hu s, the se nt enci ng courtdi d n oterr i n g ran t i n g a red u ct i o n i n sen t en ce fo r h i s ro l e i n th e cri m i n al act i v i ty.11

R e in a - S a la s a ls o a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le b e c au s e h e is r e s p o n s ib le f

o rf a m ily m e m b e r s , w h o liv e in p o v e r ty , h e w ill b e d e p o r te d a f te rh is te rm o f im p r is o n m e n t is c o m p le te d , h e “jo in e d th e c o n s p ir a c y to s u p p o r t h is fa m i l y, no tt o carrydrug s, ” a nd hi s f am i l y w i l l no tbe ca re d for by the C ol om bi an gove rnm e ntw hi l e he i s i n pr i s on. A ppe l l a nt ’ s B r i e f a t13. H e a s s e r t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc ons i de r( 1) tha tthe C ol om bi a n gove rnm e ntdoe s notha ve adequat e m edi ca l and econo m i c s up po rtsy st em s t o d ea l w i th h i s f am i l y’ s f i nanci al s itu a tio n ; a n d ( 2 ) th a t r e c id iv is m w a s v e ry u n lik e ly . R e in a - S a la s c o n te n d s th a t a s e nt e nc e be l ow the gui de l i ne r a nge w oul d ha ve be e n s uf f i c i e ntt o c om pl y w i th the st atut ory purpo se s of s ent enci ng . H e f urther a rgues thatthere i s an u nw arrant ed se nt enci ng di spar i ty betw ee n h i m se l f and other defe nd ant s w ho have rec ei ved m in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n s a n d b e lo w - g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e s . W e , pur s ua ntt o the S upr e m e C our t ’ s i ns truc t i ons i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), re vi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s s ent ence , i m pos e d a f

t e rc ons ul t i ng the gui de l i ne s a nd f a c t or s s e tf

or th i n § 3553( a ) , f

or re as on abl enes s. U ni t ed S t at es v. W i l l i am s, 43 5 F . 3d 13 50 , 13 53 (11th C i r. 20 06 ).

“ A f t e rB ooke r , as e nt e nc e m a y be r e vi e w e d f orpr oc e dur a l ors ubs t a nt i ve un re as on abl enes s. A se nt ence m aybe un re as on abl e i f i ti s the prod uctof a procedure thatdo es no tfol l ow B oo ker’ s r equi re m ent s, re gardl es s of the ac tual12

sen t en ce. A d d i t i o n al l y, a sen t en ce m ay b e su b st an t i v el y u n reaso n ab l e, reg ard l ess of the procedure used. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H un t , 45 9 F . 3d 11 80 , 11 82 n. 3 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). A defe nd antchal l engi ng hi s s ent ence bear s the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng that i ti s unrea sonabl e. U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per curi am ). T he f a c t or s the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d c ons i de ri nc l ude ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the hi s t ory a nd ch aract eri st i cs o f th e d efen d an t ; (2 ) th e n eed t o refl ectth e seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se, t o p ro m o t e resp ectfo r th e l aw , an d t o p ro v i d e j u st p u n is h m e n t f

o rth e o f f e n s e ; ( 3 ) th e n e e d f

o rd e te rr e n c e ; ( 4 ) th e n e e d to prot ec tthe pu bl i c; (5) the need t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded e duc a t i ona l orvoc a t i ona l tr a i ni ng orm e di c a l c a r e ; ( 6) the ki nds of s e nt e nc e s a va i l abl e ; ( 7) the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge ; ( 8) pe r t i ne nt p o lic y s ta te m e n ts o f

th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n ; ( 9 ) th e n e e d to a voi d unw a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i e s ; a nd ( 10) the ne e d t o pr ovi de rest i tu t i o n t o v i ct i m s. Id. at78 6; se e 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . T he w ei gh tt o b e a cc orded any gi ven st atut ory fa ct or i s am att ercom m i tt ed t o the soun d d i sc re t i on of the di stri ctcourt . U ni t ed St a t e s v . W i l l i a ms , 4 5 6 F. 3 d 1 3 5 3 , 1 3 6 3 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , c e r t . d i s mi s s e d , ___U . S.

___, 12 7 S . C t . 30 40 ( 200 7). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t is n o t r e q u ir e d “to s ta te o n th e r e c o r d th a t it h a s e x p lic itly consi dere d eac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors or t o d i sc uss e ac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) f a c to r s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . I t is s uf f i c i e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc ons i de rthe de f e nda nt ’ s a r gum e nt s a ts e nt e nc i ngNotably, the pre sumption o f re as o nablene ss in Ri ta re flec ts our rec ognition that the 2 Sentenc ingCommis sio n’ s wor k withtheguide lin e s isba se d u po n c ongre ssi on al dire c tiv eto write the guidelines to comply with the goals i n § 3553(a) . Compare Ri ta, ___U.S . at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 2463-65 (ba sed on the Commission’s work, “in the m ine run of c ases, it is probable that the sentenc e is reasona

ble”) , wi th Talley, 431 F.3d at 787-88 (notingthat the Commiss ion’s work fur thers c ongre ssi on al pre ferenc eto a vo id exce ssivesentenc ingdispa ritie s whi le maintainingfl e xibil ity where nec essar

y ) and Hunt, 459 F.3d at 1184 (noting that many rea sons exi st to fol l ow the guidelines in a par

ticular c ase, inc luding that the Commission has been instructed to consider the 3553(a)factors). 13 a nd s t a t e tha ti tha s c ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . I d. a t1330; T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d at78 6. F urther, the di stri ctcourtneed no teven expl i ci t l y art i cul at e thati thas consi dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, so l on g as the re cord ref l ec t s thatthe § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s w e r e , i n f

a c tc ons i de r e d. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D orm a n, 488 F . 3d 936, 938, 94 4 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ). T h e S u p rem e C o u rth as h el d th at , i n rev i ew i n g sen t en ces fo r reaso n ab l en ess unde r§ 3553( a ) , af

e de r a l appe l l a t e c our tm ay appl y apr e s um pt i on of r e a s o n ab le n e s s to ad is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e im p o s e d w ith in th e g u id e lin e r a n g e . R itav . U n ite d S ta te s , ___ U .S .___ , ___ , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 2 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . N e ve r the l e s s , w e ha ve de c l i ne d t o a dopts uc h apr e s um pt i on. S e e H unt , 459 F . 3d a t1184- 85. I ns t e a d, aw i thi n- r a nge s e nt e nc e m a y or di na r i l y be e xpe c t e d t o be r e a s onabl e , buti ti s notr e a s onabl e pe rs e . T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t786- 88. 2 R ei na-S al as has notm ethi s burden o f s ho w i ng thathi s s ent ence w as p ro ce d u ra ll y o r s u b stan ti v ely u n re as o n ab le. T h e d istrict co u rt h ea rd R ein a- S alas ’s a r g u m e n ts ab o u t s e n te n c in g d is p a r itie s a n d th e f in a n c ia l c o n d itio n o f

h is f a m ily ,14

a nd e xpr e s s l y s t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , w hi c h i nc l ude the c h a r a c te r is tic s o f

th e d e f e n d a n t, th e p o s s ib ility o f r e c id iv is m , a n d th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a rr a n te d s e n te n c in g d is p a r itie s , s e e 1 8 U .S .C . § § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , ( a ) ( 6 ) . T he di stri ctcourtal so expl i ci t l y c on si dere d the gu i del i nes, the pu bl i shed po l i ci es o f th e U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n , th e typ ic a l s e n te n c e s g iv e n to de f e nda nt s i nvol ve d i n t on- qua nt i ty drug tr a f f i c ki ng ope r a t i ons , a nd the qua nt i ty of d ru g s in v o lv e d . R 3 a t 1 7 - 1 9 ; 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( a ) ( 4 ) , ( a ) ( 5 ) , ( a ) ( 6 ) . A ddi t i ona l l y , R e i na - S a l a s ’ s s e nt e nc e of 135 m onths i n pr i s on w a s a tthe l ow e nd of th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e a n d w e ll b e lo w th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m o f lif e im p r is o n m e n t. 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 8 ( s ta tin g th a t w e o r d in a r ily e x p e c t a se n ten ce in th e g u id elin es ra n g e to b e r ea so n ab le). A cc o rd in g ly, R ein a- S alas ’s se nt ence w as re as on abl e. I I I . CONCL US I ON R e i na - S a l a s c ha l l e nge s hi s s e nt e nc e a s unr e a s onabl e a nd c ont e nds the d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f

a ilin g to c o n c lu d e th a t h e p la y e d am in o ro rm in im a l r o le in the offens e. A ft erca re ful re vi ew of the re cord and for the re as on s s t at ed abov e, w e A F F I R M.