### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A pril 2 9, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 04- 1476 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 20 75 2- CR-J EM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us GUILLERMO GALVEZ CARMONA, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 29, 200 5)
Be fo re CA RN E S, H U L L a nd W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Fe d. R. Cr im
. P
. 32( i) (4 )( A )( ii) r equir es dis tr ic t c ourts, be fo re im posi ng2

se nte nc e, to “ ad dr es s th e de fe ndant p er sona lly in or de r to p er

m it the de fe ndant t o speak or present any

inform ation to m itigate the sentence.” G uillerm o Galvez Carm ona contends that the district court failed to com ply with that Rule. G alvez
nowstate s th at , a t se nte nc ing , he w an te d th e oppo rt uni ty to ex pla in tha t he
com m itted his crim e because he w as under duress. S pecifically , he say s that Co lom bian gu er ill as f

or ce d hi m

a nd h is w if

e to trave l t o th e U nit ed

S ta te s w ith he ro in in th ei r lu gg ag e. Bec au se Galv ez d idno t o bjec t at sen te nc in g, o urrev ie w is forpl ai n e rro r. United States v. Quintana, 300 F.3d 1227 , 1231–32 (11th Cir. 2002). To satisfy the plain-error standard, we m ust find th at (1) the district court com m itted error, (2 ) th e err orwas p la in or o bv io us , and (3) th e err oraffe ct edsu bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 730– 32, 113 S. C t. 1770, 1776 (199 3). If the se thr ee pr ongs a re m et , w e m ay c or re ct the e rr or if it “ se ri ousl y

a ff ec t[ s] the fairness, integrity , or publ ic reputation of judicial procee ding s.” Id. at 736, 113 S. Ct
. a t 17 79 ( int er

na l qu otatio ns and c itatio n om itt ed ). G al ve z’ s c la im f ai ls at the
ve ry fir st pro ng : t he re was no erro r. The sentencing hearing wa s brief. T he governm ent stated that there w ere
no ou tstandin g issu es, r eiterate d that the safety valve applied and recom m ended that G al ve z be se nte nc ed a t the lowe nd o f the appl ic ab le gui de lin es r an ge . T he3

fo llo w ing e xc hange the n oc curr ed : T H E CO U RT : I s th er e an ythi ng f ro m the de fe ndant o r de fe nse c ouns el ? MR. NO RRIS : Your H onor, j ust that prod uces a guidelines range. TH E C OU RT : I’ ll go ov er that.
. . . [T he court then set out th e guidelines ran ge .] Is the re a nythi ng f

ro m the de fe nse or

the de fe ndant? MR. NO RRIS [defe nse counsel]: N othin g, y our Honor. THE COURT: It i s my

in te nt io n t o g iv e th e lo w end of t he gu id el in e ran ge . Y ou m igh t be able to ta lk m e out of it if y ou w ork r ea l hard

a t i t. T H E D E FEN D A

N T : I hop e G od h ears y ou. TH E C OU RT : I’ m

sure he does. That is one thing I’ m confident of. MR. NO RRIS : In that case, y ou Honor, w e have nothing further. T H E CO U RT : Y ou are c er ta inl y w el co m e to s ay

som ethin g. M r . N O R R I S : Wi t h th e O l ymp i c s g o i n g o n , J u d g e , i ti s t h e ap p r o p r i a t e t i me t h e wi s d o m o f

s a yi n g d o n ’ts n a t c h d e f

e a tf r o m th e ja w s o f

v i c t o ry. Id
. a t 4– 5 ( em

pha sis a dde d)
. T he c ourt the n im pose d ase nte nc e at

the bottom

of th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e an d d ecl in edto im po se a fi ne . Ga lvez wa s not deni ed the oppo rtunity to allocute. T he court twice asked Galv ez i f he ha d a nyth in g t o s ay an d o nc e en ga ge d i n a bri ef ex ch an ge wit h h im
. AFFIRMED.