FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 3, 2008 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- 15648 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 7 - 0 0 0 2 7 - C R - T - 1 7 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 Y E F E R D I O N I C I O M O R E N O - G O M E 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 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 3, 2008) B e f o r e A N D E R S O N , B I R C H a n d H U L L , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: Y ef erD i on i ci o M oreno-G om ez i s app ea l i ng hi s 168 -m on th sent ence2

im p o s e d a f

te rh e p le dg u ilty to o n e c o u n t o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e a tl e a s tf

i ve ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne a nd one c ountof pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e nt t o d i stri bu t e a tl ea stfi ve ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne, bo th w hi l e abo ar d a vess el subj ec t t o the j ur i s di c t i on of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s . O n appe a l , M or e no- G om e z a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s r e que s tf oram i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on, a nd he c o n te n d s th a t a1 6 8 m o n th s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in lig h t o f th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s . B a s e d o n o u rr e v i e w o f th e r e c o r d a n d th e l e g a l a r g u m e n t s , we d is c e rn n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o ra n d th e r e f o r e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D A cc ordi ng t o the un di pu t ed fa ct s i n the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt ( “ P S I ” ) , Y e f

e rD i oni c i o M or e no- G om e z w a s one of f i ve c r e w m e m be r s aboa r d a fi shi ng vess el carryi ng approx i m at el y 2, 31 3 k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne i n i nt ernat i on al w at er s. T he U ni t ed S t at es C oastG uard bo ar ded the vess el af t erre ce i vi ng a r eport thati tw as st op ped and no tfi shi ng . O nce on b oard, C oastG uard pers on nel ob se rved se vera l bal es of cocai ne i n p l ai n v i ew and u l t i m at el y r ec ov er ed 10 6 b al es o f c o c a in e . T h e c r e w o n b o a r d th e v e s s e l c o n s is te d o f th r e e C o s taR ic a n n a tio n a ls (the capt ai n, a dec k h and, and a fi sherm an) a nd tw o C ol om bi an nat i on al s ( tw o d ec k h a n d s , o n e o f

w h o m w a s M o r e n o - G o m e z ) . T h e C o s taR ic a n g o v e rn m e n t e le c te d to r e t a i n j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe thr e e C os t aR i c a n na t i ona l s aboa r d the ve s s e l , butthe3

tw o C o lo m b ia n n a tio n a ls , M o r e n o - G o m e z a n d h is c o - d e f e n d a n t, w e r e b r o u g h t to th e M id d le D is tr ic t o f

F lo r id af

o rp r o s e c u tio n . M o r e n o 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 p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e a tl e a s tf

i ve ki l ogr a m s of

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 ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 46 U . S . C . §§ 70503( a ) a nd 70506( a ) a nd ( b) , a nd 21 U . S . C . § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) ; a nd one c ountof pos s e s s i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e a tl ea stfi ve ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne w hi l e on b oard a ves se l s ubj e c tt o the j ur i s di c t i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n vi ol a t i on of 46 U . S . C . §§ 7 0 5 0 3 ( a ) a n d 7 0 5 0 6 ( a ) a n d ( b ) , 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( ii) , a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . B as ed on the charges agai nsthi m , M oreno-G om ez ’ s bas e off ense l evel w as de t e rm i ne d t o be 38, pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 1) . H e a l s o r e c e i ve d atw ol evel re du ct i on for a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty pursuantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1(a) and a on e- l evel re du ct i on for t i m el y not i fy i ng autho ri t i es of hi s i nt ent i on t o p l ea d gui l ty pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . §§ 3E 1. 1( a ) a nd ( b) . W i th at ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of

35 a nd c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory I , M or e no- G om e z ’ s G ui de l i ne i m pr i s onm e ntr a nge w a s 1 6 8 - 2 1 0 m o n th s . M or e no- G om e z obj e c t e d t o notbe i ng gi ve n atw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on unde rthe s a f e ty va l ve pr ovi s i ons . H e a l s o obj e c t e d t o notr e c e i vi ng am i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on, ar gu i ng thathe w as ent i t l ed t o such a re du ct i on because: (1) he w as no tthe ow ner4

of the vess el ; (2) he w as no tthe ow ner of the drug s; (3) he di d n otpl an the rout e; and (4) he di d n otdet erm i ne w ho w as t o rec ei ve the drug s. T he prob at i on offi ce r r e s ponde d tha tM or e no- G om e z w a s note nt i t l e d t o s uc h ar e duc t i on be c aus e of the a m ountof

c oc a i ne on boa r d the ve s s e l a s w e l l a s the s m a l l s i z e of the c r e w a nd M oreno-G om ez ’ s r ol e a s agu ar d. A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourt ove rrul e d M or e no- G om e z ’ s obj e c t i on t o notbe i ng gi ve n atw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on f or th e s a f e ty v a lv e p r o v is io n s a n d h is o b je c tio n th a t h e s h o u ld r e c e iv e am in o r - r o le re du ct i on . R 4 at5, 12 -18. R egar di ng the m i no r- rol e r educt i on , the di stri ctcourt a g r e e d w ith th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e r ’s p o s itio n . I d . a t 1 8 . T he di s tr i c tc ourts e nt e nc e d M or e no- G om e z t o 168 m onths i m pr i s onm e nt a n d f iv e y e a r s ’ s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . I d . a t 2 6 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s ta te d : A f t e rc ons i de r i ng the a dvi s ory s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s a nd a l l of the f a c t or s i de nt i f

i e d i n T i t l e 18, U ni t e d S t a t e s C ode , S e c t i on 3353( a ) ( 1) thr ough ( 7) , the C ourtf i nds tha tthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d i s s uf f i c i e ntbut notgr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry t o c om pl y w i th the s t a tut ory purpos e s of s e n te n c in g . S e n te n c e im p o s e d is r e a s o n ab le a n d a d e q u a te . I d. a t27- 28. T he di s tr i c tc ourta s ke d w he the rc ouns e l f orthe de f

e nda ntorthe go vernm enthad any obj ec t i on s t o the se nt ence , other than tho se previ ou sl y s t at ed fo r th e reco rd . Id . at2 8 . M o ren o -G o m ez’ s co u n sel o b j ect ed t o th e reaso n ab l en ess of the s e nt e nc e . I d.5 I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n appe a l , M or e no- G om e z f i r s ta r gue s tha the s houl d ha ve be e n gi ve n a m in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n b a s e d o n h is lim ite d r o le in th e s m u g g lin g o p e r a tio n . W e h av e “lo n g an d re p ea ted ly h eld th at a d istrict co u rt’s d eter m in atio n o f a d ef en d an t’ s rol e i n the offens e i s afi nd i ng of fa ctt o b e r evi ew ed on l y f or cl ear e rr or. ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. D e V a r on 175 F . 3d 930, 937 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( e n ba nc ) . S e c ond, M or e no- G om e z c ont e nds tha thi s s e nt e nc e of 168 m onths i s unr e a s onabl e ba s e d on the di stri ctcourt ’ s f

ai l ure t o p roperl y c on si der the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. W e r evi ew f i na l s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc ourtf orr e a s onabl e ne s s unde ra n abus e of di s c r e t i on s t a nda r d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A gba i , 497 F . 3d 1226, 1229 ( 11th C i r . 2007) (percuri am ); G al l v. U ni t ed S t at es , 55 2 U . S . __ , 12 8 S . C t . 58 6, 59 7 (20 07 ). A . M i n or - r ol e R e d u c t i on A di s tr i c tc ourtm a y r e duc e ade f e nda nt ’ s ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l by tw o i f

the defe nd antw as a m i no r part i ci panti n the offe nse. U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2. In d e t e rmi n i n g w h e th e rami n o r - r o l e r e d u c t i o n i s w a rr a n t e d , ad i s tr i c tc o u rtp e r f o rms atw o- pr ong a na l y s i s e xa m i ni ng ( 1) “ the de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e a ga i ns tthe r e l e va nt cond uctfor w hi ch he w as hel d acc ou nt abl e, ” and (2) the defendant ’ s “ rol e a s c om pa r e d t o tha tof

othe rpa rt i c i pa nt s i n [ hi s ] r e l e va ntc onduc t . ” D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t940. T he di s tr i c tc ourtm a y c ons i de ra ny a nd a l l f a c t s pr oba t i ve of

the6

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 . a t 9 4 3 . I n th e d ru g c o u r ie rc o n te x t, re l evantfa ct s i ncl ud e, bu tar e notl i m i t ed t o: the “ am ou ntof drug s, fa i r m arket va l ue of the drugs , a m ountof

m one y t o be pa i d t o the c our i e r , e qui ty i nt e r e s 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. at 9 4 5 . W e h av e n o t fo re clo se d th e p o ss ib il ity th at th e a m o u n t o f d ru g s in a c o u rier ’s po ss es si on m aybe di sposi t i ve i n the extre m e c as e. Id. at94 3. T he defendantbear s the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng thathe dese rves a dow nw ar d adj ustm entbe 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 . A cc ordi ng t o the re cord, the di stri ctcourtconsi dere d tw o rel evantfa ct ors un der D e V ar on : (1) the qu ant i ty of drugs, and (2) M oreno-G om ez ’ s r ol e a s adeck hand on the vess el , the sa m e r ol e hel d b y three of the fi ve cr ew m em bers . R 4 at 1 9 ; D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d a t 9 4 2 - 4 3 . M o r e n o - G o m e z a r g u e s th a t th e c o u rt c le a r ly e rr e d in r e f

u s in g to c o n s id e rth a t h e n e ith e ro w n e d a n y d ru g s n o rh a d a n y r o le in the di stri bu t i on of the drug s. H ow ever , he do es no tar gu e thathi s r ol e w as di ff er entfr om thatof the other c re w m em bers . H i s a ss ert i on thathe nei ther ow ned the drug s nor had any rol e i n thei r di stri bu t i on i s an att em ptt o com pare hi s c on du ct w ith th e c o n d u c t o f

th o s e in th e w id e rc o n s p ir a c y , n o t th o s e w h o w e r e in v o lv e d in the s pe c i f

i c c onduc tf

orw hi c h he i s be i ng he l d a c c ount abl e . S e e D e V a r on, 175 F .3 d a t 9 4 0 . M o r e n o - G o m e z p la y e d as ig n if ic a n t r o le in th e c r im e s f o rw h ic h h e is7

be i ng c ha r ge d. T hus , the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y appl i e d the a na l y s i s e s t abl i s he d by D e V a r on a nd di d notc l e a r l y e rri n de ny i ng M or e no- G om e z am i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on. B . R ea so n a b l en ess T h e S u p re m e C o u rt in G all rev iew ed th e r ea so n ab len es s o f a d ef en d an t’ s s e nt e nc e i n l i ghtof

the f a c t or s l a i d outi n § 3553( a ) . G a l l u, 128 S . C t . a t598. T he § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s i nc l ude , a m ong othe r s , the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , the hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the de f e nda nt , the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne r a n g e , a n d th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a n te d s e n te n c in g d is p a r itie s . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . T he di stri ctcourti s notre qu i re d t o st at e thati texpl i ci t l y c on si dere d al l the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s ordi s c us s e a c h f

a c t oron the r e c or d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 426 F . 3d 1324, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ [ T ] he r e i s ar a nge of r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e s f

r om w hi ch the di stri ctcourtm aychoo se ” and “ the party w ho chal l enges the se nt ence be a r s the bur de n of

e s t abl i s hi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e i n the l i ghtof both tha tr e c or d a nd the f a c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . W he n as e nt e nc e i s w i thi n the G u id e lin e s , w e d o n o t p r e s u m e r e a s o n ab le n e s s , b u t “o r d in a r ily w e w o u ld e x p e c t a s e nt e nc e w i thi n the G ui de l i ne r a nge t o be r e a s onabl e . ” I d. G i ve n tha tM or e no- G om e z ’ s 168 m onth s e nt e nc e i s w i thi n the G ui de l i ne r a n g e o f 1 6 8 - 2 1 0 m o n th s , h e m u s t o f f e re v id e n c e to s h o w h is s e n te n c e is8

unr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . I d. a t788. I n hi s br i e f , M or e noG o m e z 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 iv e n as h o rte rs e n te n c e d u e to h is d if f ic u lt chi l dh oo d, fa m i l y r es po nsi bi l i t i es , po verty, and l ac k o f e du ca t i on . T he di stri ct courtj ud ge had these fa ct s a vai l abl e t o h erand st at ed thatshe c on si dere d al l the § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors. T h e d i stri ctco u rtj u d g e d i d n o th av e t o ex p l i ci t l y ad d ress ev ery § 3 5 5 3 (a) factor d u ri n g sen t en ci n g . S co tt , 4 2 6 F . 3 d at1 3 2 9 . W e o n l y rev erse s e nt e nc i ng de t e rm i na t i ons f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on a nd M or e no- G om e z ha s not s h o w n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n . M o r e n o - G o m e z a ls o a r g u e s th a t b e c au s e h is c o - d e f e n d a n t w a s s e n te n c e d to on l y 108 m on ths, the di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o avo i d u nw arrant ed se nt ence di spar i t i es a c c or di ng t o § 3553( a ) . T he othe rde f e nda nti n thi s c a s e w a s s e nt e nc e d ba s e d on a n of f e ns e l e ve l of

33 w hi c h i s l ow e rtha n M or e no- G om e z ’ s l e ve l of 35. H i s c ode f e nda ntr e c e i ve d thi s tw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on f orhi s s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e i n the pr os e c ut i on of

othe r s . T he of

f e ns e l e ve l c a l c ul a t i ons a nd the s truc tur e of the G ui del i nes “ dem on stra t e thatthe S ent enci ng C om m i ss i on ful l y ant i ci pat ed se nt enci ng di spar i ty betw ee n d ef endant s i nv ol ved i n the sa m e off ense . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . C h o ta s , 9 6 8 F .2 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A ddi t i ona l l y , M or e no- G om e z a r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc e w i l l be l onge rtha n the s e nt e nc e s tha tthe othe rm e n w i l l r e c e i ve i n C os t aR i c a . H ow e ve r , the i nc l us i on of9

se nt ence di spar i ty i n the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors i s m eanton l y t o app l y t o “ un w arrant ed di spar i t i es thatexi st [] i n the fe dera l cr i m i nal j ust i ce sy st em , thatsy st em for w hi ch th e G u id e lin e s a r e g o v e rn in g la w .” U n ite d S ta te s v . C la rk , 4 3 4 F .3 d 6 8 4 , 6 8 7 ( 4 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s im p o s itio n o f a1 6 8 m o n th s e n te n c e w a s r e a s o n ab le a n d d id n o t c r e a te a n u n w a rr a n te d s e n te n c e d is p a r ity . I I I . CONCL US I ON U po n car ef

ul re vi ew of the se nt enci ng transcr i ptand the pres ent ence i nve s t i ga t i on r e port , a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the pa rt i e s ’ br i e f

s , w e di s c e rn no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d the gui de l i ne s r a nge a nd consi dere d the fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . M oreno-G om ez has notshow n that h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le , a n d th e r e f o r e w e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ru lin g . AF F I RME D.