FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 5, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 15363 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 2 0 7 - C R - T - 2 6 - MAP 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 A L V E R O B E N I T O C A I C E D O K A S Q U E T E , D e fe 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 forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 5, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntA l ve r o B e ni t o C a i c e do K a s que t e ( “ K a s que t e ” ) a ppe a l s hi s 108- m o n th c o n c u r r e n t s e n te n c e s im p o s e d a f te rp le a d in g g u ilty to : ( 1 ) c o n s p ir a c y to2

po ss es s w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e f i ve ki l og ra m s or m ore of c ocai ne w hi l e on b oard av e s s e l , 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 ) a n d 2 1 U . S. C. § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) ( C ount1) ; a nd ( 2) pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of

c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 46 A pp. U . S . C . § 1903( a ) & ( g) , 21 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( ii) , a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . In M ay 20 05 , the U ni t ed S t at es N avy s hi p R ent z ( “ the R ent z” ) w as p a tr o llin g in th e E a s te r n P a c if ic O c e a n . A h e lic o p te rd is p a tc h e d f r o m th e R e n tz s p o tt e d av e s s e l a n d d e t e r mi n e d th a ti tw a s th e Co l o mb i a n f i s h i n g v e s s e l O FY ( “th e O F Y ” ) . N a v a l o f

f ic ia ls tr a c k e d th e O F Y a n d o b s e r v e d it m o v in g e r r a tic a lly a nd c ha ngi ng i t s c our s e m ul t i pl e t i m e s . B y the t i m e the R e nt z c l os e d i n on the O F Y , th e O F Y w as en g u l fed i n sm o k e an d fl am es, an d i t s ei g h tcrew m em b ers, in c lu d in g K a s q u e te , b o a r d e d as m a lle rv e s s e l. L a w e n fo r c e m e n t o f f ic ia ls ext i ng ui shed the fi re on the O F Y and fou nd 4, 30 0 k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne conceal ed i n ahi dde n c om pa r t m e nt . T he of f i c e r s the n boa r de d the s m a l l e rve s s e l a nd arre st ed the O F Y ’ s c re w m em bers , i ncl ud i ng K as qu et e. R uceo P ort ocarre ro id e n tif ie d h im s e lf

a s th e m a s te ro f

th e O F Y . O n a p p e a l , K a s q u e t e a r g u e s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r te r r e d i n n o tg r a n t i n g h i m a m i t i ga t i ng r ol e r e duc t i on. H e c l a i m s tha the w a s j us tac r e w m e m be ra nd di d not ha ve a ny s pe c i a l s ki l l s . K a s que t e dr oppe d outof s c hool w he n he w a s i n s e c ondIn United States v. Booker, 5 43 U. S. 2 20(2 00 5) , theS upremeCourt e xcis e d 1 8 U .S. C. 1 § 3742(e) , which esta

blished standards of

revie w on appe al. However, this Court has held that pre- Booke r

stand ard s for reviewi ng app lic atio n o f t heSentenc ingGuidelin e s ( i.e. , finding s of fact for c lear err o r, an dquestions of law de novo ) s til l app ly po st-Booke r . Un ite d State s v . Cr awf or d, 407 F.3d 1174, 1177- 78 (11th Cir. 2005). 3 gr a de be c a us e he w a s ve r y poor . S hor t l y a f t e rhi s a r r e s t , he c oope r a t e d w i th the go vernm ent . H e c l ai m s thathi s r ol e i n the conspi ra cy w as l es s s i gn i fi ca ntthan t hat of the m aj or drug tra ff

i cker s a nd ow ners of the drug s, and h e had l i m i t ed k n o w le d g e o f

th e s c o p e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y . K a s q u e te c o n c lu d e s th a t h e w a s ju s t a “n a u tic a l m u le ,” a n d n o t th e o w n e ro f th e d r u g s o rth e o r g a n iz e ro f th e c o n s p ir a c y . W e have “ l on g and re peat edl y hel d thata di stri ctcourt ’ s det er m i nat i on of a defe nd ant ’ s r ol 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 for cl ea r e r r o r .” Uni t e d Stat e s v . D e V ar on , 1 7 5 F .3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) . 1 S e c t i on 3B 1. 2 of

the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s pr ovi de s forafour - l e ve l de c r e a s e t o a de fe nda nt ’ s of

fe ns e l e ve l i f

the de fe nda ntw a s am i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nti n a ny c r i m i na l a c t i vi t y a nd at w o- l e ve l de c r e a s e i f the de fe nda ntw a s am i norpa r t i c i pa nt i n a ny c r i m i na l a c t i vi t y . U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2. A de fe nda ntw ho i s am i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nti s one w ho i s pl a i nl y a m ong the l e a s tc ul pa bl e of

thos e i nvol ve d i n the c onduc tof agr oup. U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2, co m m en t . (n . 4 ). A d efen d an ti s a m i n o r p art i ci p an ti f h e i s l ess cu l p ab l e th an m o st o th e rp a r t i c i p a n t s , b u twh o s e r o l e c a n n o tb e d e s c r i b e d a s m i n i m a l . U. S . S . G.4

§3B 1. 2, c om m e nt . ( n. 5) . I n de t e r m i ni ng ade fe nda nt ’ s m i t i ga t i ng r ol e i n the of fe ns e , the di s tr i c tc our t“ m us tm e a s ur e the de fe nda nt ’ s r ol e a ga i ns tthe r e l e va nt co n d u ctfo r w h i ch [h e] w as h el d acco u n t ab l e atsen t en ci n g . . . [an d ] m ay al so m ea sure the defendant ’ s r ol e a gai nstthe ot her parti ci pant s, t o the ext entthey a re di sc er nabl e, i n thatre l evantcond uct . ” D e V ar on , 175 F . 3d a t945. “ T he de fe nda nt bear s the bu rden of prov i ng hi s m i no r r ol e by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B oyd , 291 F . 3d 1274, 1277 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . W he r e adr ug couri er ’ s r el evantcond ucti s l i m i t ed t o h i s ow n cri m i nal ac t , a di stri ctcourtm ay l egi t i m at el y c on cl ud e thatthe couri erpl ay ed an i m po rt antand ess ent i al rol e i n that c r im e . See D e V

ar on , 175 F . 3d a t942- 43. F ur the r m or e , “ the a m ountof dr ugs i m por t e 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 ade fe nda nt ’ s r ol e i n [ hi s ] r e l e va nt cond uct . ” See i d. a t943. “ [ W ] he r e the r e l e va ntc onduc ta ttr i but e d t o ade fe 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 a [ mi t i g a t i n g - r o l e ] a d

j u s t me n ts i mp l y b y p o i n t i n g t o s o me b r o a d e rc r i mi n a l s c h e me in w h ic h [ h e ] w a s am in o rp a r tic ip a n t b u t fo rw h ic h [ h e ] w a s n o t h e ld ac coun t abl e. ” I

d. a t 9 4 1 . H e r e , th e r e c o r d s u p p o r ts th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g th a t K a s q u e te ’s r o le in the r e l e va ntc onduc tw a s notm i nororm i ni m a l . W i th r e s pe c tt o the f i r s tpr ong of the D e V ar on a na l y s i s , a ts e nt e nc i ng, K a s que t e w a s he l d a c c ount a bl e onl y fortheTh ec aptain o f t heOFY, Portoca

rrero , re c e ive d a

tw o- le vel enh anc e ment p ur su ant to 2 U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)( 2)(B ) because he was the ca ptain. ( See Un ite d State s v . Portocarre ro , Ca se No. 05-15448-CC) (a

related ca se). 5 4, 300 ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne , ave r y l a r ge a m ount , w hi c h w a s the a m ounttha tthe O F Y w a s tr a ns por t i ng. T hus , K a s que t e ’ s a c tua l a nd r e l e va ntc onduc tw e r e the s a m e , a n d , a s s u c h , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r u lin g w a s n o t c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s . W i th res pectt o the se cond pron g o f the D e V ar on a n a ly s is , th e r e is in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s h o w th a t K a s q u e te w a s am in o ro rm in im a l p a r tic ip a n t in com pari son t o o thers . H er e, the on l y per sons i dent i fi abl e f rom the evi dence ar e K a s que t e a nd the s e ve n othe rc r e w m e m be r s of the O F Y , one of

w hom w a s the c a p ta in o f

th e v e s s e l. K a s q u e te o f fe r s n o e v id e n c e in s u p p o r t o f h is c la im th a t h is 2 r ol e w a s l e s s s i gni f

i c a nttha n tha tof

the m a j ordr ug tr a f

f i c ke r s a nd ow ne rof

the d r u g s . A d d itio n a lly , K a s q u e te h a s p r o v id e d n o e v id e n c e th a t h e w a s le s s c u lp a b le than t he ot her c re w m em bers of the O F Y . K as qu et e c l ai m s thathe w as no m ore tha n ac r e w m e m be ra nd ha d no s pe c i a l s ki l l s , how e ve r , he ha s pr ovi de d no e vi de nc e s how i ng tha thi s r e s pons i bi l i t i e s a boa r d the O F Y w e r e l e s s vi t a l t o the e n te r p r is e th a n th o s e o f a n y o f th e o th e rc r e w m e m b e r s . T o c o n c lu d e , K a s q u e te ha d the bur de n t o pr ove he pl a y e d am i t i ga t i ng r ol e , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not c le a r ly e r rin f

in d in g th a t h e d id n o t m e e t h is b u r d e n . T h e r e fo r e , w e a f f ir m h is s e n te n c e . AF F I RME D.