F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT February17 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1029 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00246 -CR- T- 30-TBM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us GERARDO DE JESUS MATUTE-SANTOS, 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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 17 , 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N and F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Appe llant c ha lle nge s hi s 16 8- m onth se nte nc e im pose d f or kno w ing ly

and w ill fu lly c onsp ir ing to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te and p oss es sio n of f ive kil ogr am s or

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

ave sse l. Appe llant p le d gu ilty but ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s se nte nc e, c ont en din g th at his F if th and S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts w er e vio la te d. W e co nc lud e that the appe llant’ s r igh ts w er e not vio la te d and tha t he a ff

irm at ive ly

w ai ve d any

and a ll obj ec tio ns unde r the S ixth Am endm ent. F inally , w e find no m erit in appellant’ s contentio n that his s entence s h o u l db e v ac at ed b ec au s e h e w as s en t en ce du n d erm an d at o ry g u i d el i n es . We a f f i rm. I. F ac tua l B ac kgr ound G er ar do d e Je sus Matut e- Santo s ( he re af te r re fe rr ed

to as “ Santo s” ), a lon g w ithsix oth er

de fe ndants , w as ind ic te d ontw o c ount s: ( 1) kno w ing ly and w ill fu lly conspirin g to po ssess with intent to distribu te five kilogram s or m ore of a m ixture an d su bst an ce c ont ai nin g ade te ct ab le a m ount of c oc ai ne w hil e ab oard

ave sse l, in vio la tio n of

46 App. U . S. C. § 19 03( a) , (g ), (j ) an d 21 U . S. C. § 96 0( b) (1 )( B) (i i) and (2 ) know ing ly

and w ill fu lly

pos se ssi ng w ithint en t t o di str ibu te f ive kil ogr am s or m or e of am ixt ur e an d su

bst an ce c ont ai nin g ade te ct ab le a m ount of c oc ai ne w hil e ab oa rda ve ss el , in vi ol at io n o f 46 App . U.S.C. § 1 90 3( a), (g ) an d 2 1 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)( ii).3

In April 2004, in international water s, approxim ately eighty nautical m iles of f the c oa st o f Pana m a, aU nit ed S ta te s C oa st Guard

lawe nf or ce m en t de ta ch m en t int er ce pte d th e Mi ss L or

ra ine , an e igh ty -f

oot -l ong H ondura

n f ish ing ve sse l. Purs uant t o th e ap pli ca

ble int er na tio na l a gr ee m en t, the Co as t G uard r eque ste d and re ce ive d pe rm iss ionf

ro m H ondura s to board

and s earc h th e Mi ss L or

ra ine . D ur ing t h e s e a r c h , th e C o a s tGu a r dd i s c o v e r e de v i d e n c e o f c o c a i n e i n th e p a s s a g e w a ys an d th e en gin e ro om . T he Co as t G uard a lso dis co ve re d ahid de n c om partm en t i n the fuel tank which contained approxim ately 2,640 kilo gram s of cocaine. W ithS an tos pr es en t a t the ple a he ar ing , the gov er nm en t pr es en te d th e ab ove m en tio ne d f

ac ts o f the c ri m ina l of

fe nse s. A ft er

the gov er

nm en t’ s f ac tua l r ec itatio n, the c ourt a ske d S an tos , “ Is that w ha t oc curr ed in thi s c as e?” S an tos a gr ee d on ly to the facts nece ssary

to prove all the elem ents of the offense and only to the facts set fo rth in the ind ic tm en t. T he gov er nm en t the n st at ed

it s po sit ionthat, by

e nte ri ng a guilt y plea, Santos waived a j ury trial on all issues, includin g having a j ury de te rm in at io n a s t o d ru g q ua nt it y . San to s ag reed an d p le d g ui lt y to all co un ts . Subsequentl y , a

probation o ffice r issued a presentence investigation report (“ PS I” ), w hic h r ec ount ed the above m en tio ne d f

ac ts w ithsom e ad dit ion al de ta ils . T he P SI state d th at

appr oxi m at el y

2, 200 kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne w er e fo und in the se cr et c om partm en t onthe ve sse l. I n a ddi tio n, the P SI state d th at the c ap ta inA base offe nse leve l of 38 is called f or whe n the quantity

of coc aine is 150 kilog rams or 1 more. Blakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L .Ed.2d 403 (2004) ( holding 2 that the sentenc ing judg e violated the Sixt h Amendment right to a jury trial by enhanc ing the guideline offe nse leve l based on fa cts that neither w ere char g ed in the indictment nor prove n to a jury beyond a re asonable doubt.) 4 inf orm ed the c re w , w hil e at

se a, that he w as to re ce ive ashi pm en t of c oc ai ne and $1 50 ,00 0 fo r de li ve rin g t he co cai ne , fro m whi ch he wou ldpa y

th e cre w. U til iz ing the N ove m

be r 1, 200 4, e dit ionof

the U nit ed

S ta te s S en te nc ing G uid el ine s, the pr oba tio n of fi ce r pe rf orm ed the appr opr ia te se nte nc ing ca lc ulatio ns. H e not ed

that a statut or y m ini um of a t l ea st 1 0 y ears w as appl ic ab le w ithastatut or

y m ax im um of li fe in pr iso n. T he c al cu la tio ns s tart ed w ithaba se offense level of 38 pursuant to U.S .S .G . § 2D 1.1(c) (1). The probation officer 1 reco m m en de d a n a dju st m en t fo r acc ep ta nc e-o f-re sp on si bi li ty, pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a ), (b), which re duced the offense level by three. W ith a total offense level of 35 and a crim inal histo ry category of I, the guidelin es im

prisonm ent range w as 168 to 210 m onth s as to both counts, we ll below the statutory m axim um of life im pr iso nm en t. A t the se nte nc ing he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt a ske d S an tos if he obj ec te d to the c al cu la tio ns s et

f orth i n th e PS I. S an tos r em ind ed the c ourt tha t he ha d on ly adm itted the drug qu antity set forth in the indictm ent and that at this tim e, he w as raising a Blakely objec tion to the district court’ s finding of drug quantit y based 25

uponapr ep onde ranc e standard . Ther e followed a

discussi on of the hold ing of Blakely and the differe nce be tw ee n f ac tua l f ind ing s m ad e by

aj ur y and those m ad e by

aj udge f or pur pose s of se nte nc ing . T his dis cu ssi on i nc lud ed the bur de n of

pr oof gov er nin g bo th pr oc ed ur es . T he j udge of

fe re d to e m

pane l a se nte nc ing j ur

y to co nsi de r the dr

ug quantit y question based upon proof bey ond a reasonable doub t. I n response, Santo s a ske d th e co urt i f ex er ci sin g hi s r igh t t o aj ur y w oul d r es ult

in los ing his acce ptance-of-r espons ibilityreduction. T he j udge answered in the af firm ative, expla ini ng t o S an tos that by e nga gin g insuc h atr ia l he w oul d no t be vol unt ar ily acce pting responsibi lity

and would lose the three point reductio n. T he district co urt gr an te d S an tos apos tpo ne m en t so that he c oul d c onf er w ithc ouns el and consider the court’ s offer. A t the se co nd s en te nc ing he ar ing , S an tos w ith dr ewhis e ar lie r obj ec tio n ba se d onthe S ixth A m en dm en t, and a ske d to pr es er ve his F if th A m en dm en t o b je c t i o n th a tth e i n d i c t men tc o n t a i n e dn o “ n o t i c e ” o f dr u g qu a n t i t y. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c lari fi ed his r eque st b y

a ski ng; [S ] o [ Santo s’ ] obj ec tio n is that the ind ic tm en t do es not c ont ai n as p e c i f i c w e i g h tab o v e 5 k i l o g r ams ? H e d o e s n o to b j e c tt o me pr oc ee din g w iththe se nte nc ing and the f ind ing of w ei ght ba se d ona pr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce standard ? T he r es pons e w as , “ T ha t’ s c or re ct , y our hon or . ” T he c ourt m ad e the appr opr ia teAl l s u ch o b j ec t i o n s we re wa i v edats en t en ci n g. 3 6 finding as to quantity(2,220 kilogram s as set forth in the PSI ) and then explained that “ It ’ s m

y int en tio n to giv e Santo s th e lowe nd o f the gui de lin es , w hic h is 168 m onths. ” Santo s w as se nte nc ed to 168 m onths, to be f

oll ow ed by 5 y ears of supe rv ise d r el ea se II. Standard of Re view We r e v i e wS a n t o s ’ F i f

t h A me n d me n tc l a i m de novo . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Br ow n, 364 F . 3d 1 266, 126 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( “ W e re vie wque sti ons of co ns ti tu ti on al law de novo .” ), cert. denied, 543 U.S . 879 (2004). W e re view qu es ti on s o f la w de novo . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. U nte rb ur ge r, 97 F . 3d 1 413, 141 5 (11th Cir. 1996).

II I. A na ly sis On appeal, Santos m akes no argum ent as to a Sixth Am endm ent issue, 3 rathe r, he arg ue s th at

his se nte nc e w as im

pose d invio la tio n of

his F if th A m en dm en t r igh ts and m ust be va cate d and r em an de d f or r e- se nte nc ing pur suant to United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738. 160 L.E d.2d 621 (200 5). Santos contends that the following errors occurr ed: (1) the district court violated7

his Fifth Am endm ent rights bysentencing hi m based on a quantit y

of cocaine that w as not a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t, a dm itt ed by him , nor pr ove n to aj ur

y be y ond a re as ona ble doubt, ( 2) he w as se nte nc ed pur suant t o th e U nit ed

S ta te s S en te nc ing G uid el ine s, w hic h, on the da te of the se nte nc ing he ar ing , w er e m an da tor y and le ga lly bin din g, ( 3) he did

not r ec ei ve a de qua te “ not ic e” of the dr ug quanti ty , and (4 ) the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e rr or in se nte nc ing him

w as not harm le ss b ec au se it im pa ct ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s se le ct ionof se nte nc e. W e fi nd the se arg um en ts t o be w ith out m er it.

W aiver Before we address Santos’ Fifth A m endm ent claim s, w e turn to his waiver of any Bo oke r an d B lake y

obj ec tio ns. S an tos arg ue s th at , ba se d onBo oke r an d Blakey , his Fifth A m endm ent rights were violated because he wa s sentenced based o n aqu a n t i t y o f

c o c a i n e w h i c h w a s n o ta l l e g e di n th e i n d i c t me n t , a d mi t t e db y h i m, or pr ove n to aj ur

y be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. T his arg um en t r ef le ct s a fu nd am en ta l m is un de rs ta nd in g o f th e Bo ok er l in e o f au th or it y . Bo oke r an d B lake ly

are ba se d onS ixth A m en dm en t pr inc ipl es de al ing w ith the r igh t t o aj ur

y tr ia l, and d o no t su

ppor t the pr opos iti on tha t S an tos ’ F if th A m en dm en t r igh ts w er e vio la te d ba se d onthe ind ic tm en t’ s f ai lur e to a lle ge the quanti ty of c oc ai ne . S ee ge ne ra lly , Bl ak el y , 542 U . S. 296 , 124 S . Ct . 253 1, L . E d. 2d8

403; Bo oke r, 543 U . S. 220 , 125 S . Ct . 738 , 160 L . E d. 2d 6 21. Ina ddi tio n, our

pr ec ed en t ha s m ad e it cl ear that i t i s no t ne ce ssary that the allegations in an indictm ent set forth any specific quantity

of drugs. Se e U nited St at es v. Ma lde na ldo S an ch ez , 269 F . 3d 1 250 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) c er t de nie d, 535 U . S. 942 . “[ E ] ve n if an in dic tm en t f

or a [n ] . . . of

fe nse doe s no t a lle ge aspe ci fi c drug quan tity , it is legally and constitu tionallysufficient both before and after Apprendi, and a district court m ay still accept the defendant's guilt y plea . . .or . . . sentence the defendant for that char ge. Maldenaldo Sanchez, 269 F.3d at 1275 (em phasis add ed). Moreover, [w ] he n aspe ci fi c dr

ug quanti ty

tr igg er s am an da tor

y m ini m um sentence or is used in a U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ca lc ulatio n, and r es ult s inase nte nc e at or be lowthe oth er

w ise applicable m axim

um penalty . . . there is no Apprendi err or and there is n o r equir em en t tha t a

spe ci fi c dr

ug quanti ty

be a lle ge d inthe indictm ent, subm itted to a jury , and proven bey ond a reasonable. doub t. Id. at 1288 (em

phasis add ed). It is cl ear in this r ec or d th at S an tos w ai ve d any

Bo oke r an d B lake ly ar gum en ts whe n he e xpr es sly w ith dr ewhis S ixth A m en dm en t ob j ec tio n inthe dis tr ic t c ourt. T he dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ne d to S an tos that i f it w as his de sir e to h av e a j ur y de te rm ine the quanti tie s of dr ugs inv olv ed , suc h ar eque st w oul d be gr an te d. Inthat i nst an ce , the bur de n of pr oof w oul d be be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. T he court granted Santos a rec ess so that he could consider this offer. Santos declined the of fe r. A t the se co nd s en te nc ing he ar ing , S an tos w ith dr ewhis e ar lie r obj ec tio n9

ba se d onthe S ixth A m en dm en t, and a ske d th e co urt t o pr es er ve his F if th Am en dm en t o bjec ti on th atth e in di ct m en t co nt ai ne d n o “ no ti ce” o f drug qu an ti ty. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c lari fi ed his w ith dr aw al by

a ski ng; [ S] o [ Santo s’ ] obj ec tio n is that the ind ic tm en t do es not c ont ai n as p e c i f i c w e i g h tab o v e 5 k i l o g r ams ? H e d o e s n o to b j e c tt o me pr oc ee din g w iththe se nte nc ing and the f ind ing of w ei ght ba se d ona pr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce standard ? D e f e n s e c o u n s e l a g r e e d . Un d e r th e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s S a n t o s h a s wa i v e dan y obj ec tio n to a“

j udi ci al ” dr

ug quanti ty

f ind ing ba se d up on a

pr ep onde ranc e of

the ev ide nc e standard , w he the r ba se d onthe S ixth A m en dm en t or the F if th A m en dm en t. I n othe r w or ds, the f or eg oin g c oll oquy

c onst itu te s an e xpr es s agreem ent that the judge can f ind th e w eight of the drug based o n a preponderance of the e vid en ce . S an tos w ill not be he ar d no wto ar gue , c ontrary to that a gr ee m en t, that the j udge sho uld

not have m ad e suc h f

ind ing s. Fi fth A m en dm en t In addressing Santos’ F ifth Am endm ent argum ents, w e find that Santos has fa ile d to e sta

bli sh a vio la tio n. T he arg um en ts p re se nte d are that: (1 ) a Bo oke r er ro r is present, beca

use, w ithin the operation of a m andatory guidelin e sy stem , any

fac t that i nc re as es ade fe ndant’ s “ statut or y m ax im um se nte nc e” r an ge m

ust f ir st b e ch ar ge d by

ind ic tm en t, and ( 2) the gov er nm en t f ai le d to pr ovi de “ not ic e” of dr ug quantit y as articulated in the Fif

th Am endm ent. Both of these ar gum ents are unpersuasiv e.10

W e noted above that thi s first Fifth A m endm ent argum ent was w aived when Santos agreed that the j udge could find the drug weight by a preponderance. Even if the arg um en t ha d no t be enw ai ve d, w e re j ec t i t a lte rn at ive ly

on the m er its . T he ind ic tm en t c harg ed

S an tos w ithc ri m es that i nvol ve d f ive kil ogr am s or

m or e of cocaine w hich wer e found on th e Miss Lorr aine. Pursuant to 21 U.S .C. § 960(b), the “ statutory

m axim um sentence” is life in prison . I t is irrelevant that the district co urt ul tim at el y

se nte nc ed

S an tos ba se d onaquanti ty of c oc ai ne not

a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t, be ca

use thi s a ct iondid

not a lte r the appl ic ab le “ statut or y m ax im um se nte nc e. ” U lti m at el y , the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pose d ase nte nc e of

168 m onths i n p ri s o n , wh i ch i s we l l b el o w t h e “st at u t o ry m ax i m u m s en t en ce .” Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s j udicial drug q uantityfinding, based upo n a preponderance of the e vidence standard, did not vi olate Santos’ Fifth A m endm ent rights because the sentence im pose d di d no t e xc ee d th e statut or y m ax im um ba se d up on the a lle ga tio ns i n th e ind ic tm en t. Santo s’ not ic e ar gum en t i s a lso w ith out m er it. A cc or din g to the r ec or d, it is cl ear that S an tos w as aw ar e of the quanti ty

of c oc ai ne f ound on the ve sse l a t the tim e he enter ed his gui lty plea. The following facts are undis puted: (1) Santos was pr es en t a t the ple a he ar ing w he n th e gove rn m en t r ec ite d th e quanti ty of c oc ai ne seized, (2) attac hed to the crim inal com plaint gi ving rise to the arr est warrant w as ana ff idavit se tti ng f orth the a m ount

of c oc ai ne se iz ed

f ro m the Mi ss L or

ra ine , andSee 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) . 4 11 (3 ) the P SI r ep ort r ef

er en ce d th e quanti ty

of c oc ai ne se iz ed . P ri or

to the e ntr

y of his gui lty ple a an d pr ior

to se nte nc ing , S an tos w as giv enr ep eate d “ not ic e” of dr ug qu a n t i t y. Santos also contend s that the dist rict court com m itted a Booker err or when it enhanc ed

his se nte nc e pur suant t o am an da tor y appl ic at ionof

the S en te nc ing Guidelines. Be cause Santos failed to raise this iss ue in the district court, w e re view the m an da tor

y na tur e of the gui de lin es f

or pla in e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr ig ue z, 39 8 F .3d12 91 (11 Cir . 20 05 ) cer t. d en ie d, 1 25 S.Ct . 29 35 (20 05 ). To th pr ev ai l un de r pla in e rr or

r ev ie w , S an tos m

ust pr ove an: " (1 ) er

ro r, ( 2) that i s pl ai n, an d ( 3) that a ff

ec ts s ubst an tia l r igh ts. " R odr igu ez , 398 F . 3d at 12 98. W e ag re e that a ft er

Bo oke r the re is er

ro r an d th at

it is pla in. A s w e expla ine d in Ro dr igu ez , how ev er , it

is the thi rd

pr ong that i s m ost

dif fi cu lt. S an tos ha s th e burden of establish ing a reasonable probabilitythat if the sentencing judge had known the gui delines were m erely advisory and had taken into account any other unc onsi de re d § 3 553 f

ac tor s, he w oul d have im pose d alow er

se nte nc e. S an tos 4 ha s f ai le d to m ee t this bur de n. A lth oughin se nte nc ing S an tos the j udge state d,

“ It ’ s m y int en tio n to giv e [S an tos ] the lowe nd o f the Guid el ine s, ” the j udge m ad e no i ndi catio n th at

he w oul d have im

pose d asho rt er

se nte nc e ha d he kno w n th e guid elines wer e m erely

advisory . T he m ere fact that the district j udge sentenced12

Santos at the low end of the range establish ed by the Sentencing Guidelines does not establis h sufficient prej udice under the plain error standard. See United States v. Fie lds, 408 F.3d 1356 , 1361 (11th Cir. 2005) (concluding that a district court's de ci sio n to se nte nc e a de fe ndant at the lowe nd o f the gui de lin es r an ge , w ith out m or e, w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh d ef en dant' s burd enon the thi rd pr ong of the pla in e rr or

te st) . IV . Co nc lus ion F i n d i n g n o me r i ti n th e c o n t e n t i o n s r a i s e d , w e a f f i rm. AF FIRMED