FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 9, 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- 15493 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 9 9 - C R - T - 2 4 - 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 D A V I D M A U R I L I O Z A P A T A V E L A S Q U E Z , 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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 9, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D a vi d M a ur i l i o Z a pa t aV e l a s que z a ppe a l s hi s 135- m onth c onc ur r e nt2

s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d a f

t e rhe pl e d gui l t y t o the s e of fe ns e s tha tt ook pl a c e w hi l e he w as aboard a vess el subj ec tt o t he j uri sdi cti on of the U ni t ed S t at es : (1) c on spi ra cy t o pos s e s s 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 21 U . S . C . § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) a nd 46 U . S . C . a pp. § 1903( a ) , ( g) , ( j ) ; a nd ( 2 ) p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te f iv e k ilo g r a m s o rm o r e o f c o c a in e , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 2, 21 U . S . C . § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) , a nd 46 U . S . C . a pp. § 1 9 0 3 (a), (g ). A ft er rev i ew , w e affi rm V el asq u ez’ s sen t en ces. I . B AC KG RO UN D I n F e br ua r y 2005, aU ni t e d S t a t e s C oa s tG ua r d he l i c opt e rs pott e d a nd eventual l y di sabl ed the engi ne of a fort y- foot“ go -fas t ” boati n i nt er nat i on al w at er s n e a rC o lo m b ia . U p o n b o a r d in g , th e C o a s t G u a r d d is c o v e r e d 5 5 b a le s o f c o c a in e in the boa t ’ s hol d, w i th e a c h ba l e c ont a i ni ng 30 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne forat ot a l of 1, 65 0 k i l og ra m s. T he bo athad fou r c re w m em bers . V el as qu ez , as the “ l oad gu ar d” on the bo at , w as re spon si bl e for prot ec t i ng the bo at ’ s c ar go . F or hi s r ol e, V el as qu ez w as prom i se d $ 10 , 00 0, w hi l e t w o o f hi s c o-defendant s w er e prom i se d $5, 000. V e l a s que z a nd hi s thr e e c o- de fe nda nt s pl e d gui l t y t o both c ount s . T he pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) r e c om m e nde d at ot a l of fe ns e l e ve l of

33 a nd ac r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y of I , r e s ul t i ng i n ar e c om m e nde d G ui de l i ne s r a nge3

o f 1 3 5 t o 1 6 8 mo n th s ’ i mp r i s o n me n t . V e l a s q u e z ’ s w r i tt e n o bj e c t i o n s t o th e PSI a r gue d tha the s houl d r e c e i ve am i t i ga t i ng r ol e r e duc t i on. I n ove r r ul i ng V el as qu ez ’ s m i t i gat i ng rol e obj ec t i on , the di stri ctcourtno t ed thatV el as qu ez w as be i ng he l d a c c ount a bl e foronl y the dr ugs on boa r d the go- fa s tboa t , ha d the a d d itio n a l r e s p o n s ib ility o f e n s u r in g th a t th e s a m e a m o u n t o f c o c a in e lo a d e d o n to the bo atw as ul t i m at el y unl oaded, w as pai d m ore than o ther c re w m em bers and w as i nv ol ved i n a si gn i fi ca ntam ou ntof cocai ne. T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed the G ui del i nes c al cul ati on s i n the P S I a nd no t ed th e a d v is o r y G u id e lin e s r a n g e a n d th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) fa c to r s . W ith r e s p e c t to V el as qu ez ’ s r equestfor abel ow -G ui del i nes- ra ng e s ent ence , the di stri ctcourt po i nt ed ou tthatV el as qu ez ’ s bac kg roun d as aform erC ol um bi an m i l i t ar y pol i ce of f i c e ra nd hi s a dva nc e d e duc a t i on m a de hi s i nvol ve m e nti n the of fe ns e a t y pi c a l of ot her defe nd ant s w ho w er e genera l l y poo r a nd had few op t i on s. T he di stri ctcourt u ltim a te ly s ta te d th a t it d id n o t th in k an o n - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e w a s a p p r o p r ia te “e v e n c o n s id e r in g th o s e fa c to r s in y o u rc a s e ,” a n d im p o s e d c o n c u r r e n t 1 3 5 - m o n th s e n te n c e s , a t th e lo w e n d o f th e r e c o m m e n d e d G u id e lin e s r a n g e . V e la s q u e z tim e ly a ppe a l e d.Pur su ant to U .S. S.G . § 3B 1. 2, a de fend ant is e nti tle d to a fo ur-p oint de c re a sein his o ff e ns e 1 le vel if hewa s a

minimal pa

rtic ipant, anda

tw o- po int decr ease if

hewa s a

min or pa rtic ipant. Whether a defendant qualifies for a decrea se i s “heavily dependent upon the fac ts of the particular case .” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 c mt. n.3(C). A “minimal participant” is someone who is “plainly among the least c ulpable of those involved in the c onduct of a group. ” I d . at cmt . n.4. A “minor participant” is a per son who is “less culpablethan most other participants, but whose role c ould not be described a s minim al.” Id. at cmt. n.5. 4 I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . M it ig a t in g R o le W e r ev iew fo r c lear er ro r a d istrict co u rt’s d eter m in atio n o f a d efen d an t’ s qua l i f i c a t i on forar ol e r e duc t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d 930, 937 ( 1 1 C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) . T h e d e fe n d a n t h a s th e b u r d e n o f e s ta b lis h in g h is r o le in th the of fe ns e by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e . I d. a t939. T w o pr i nc i pl e s gui de

1 ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n s id e r a tio n : ( 1 ) th e c o u r t m u s t c o m p a r e th e d e fe n d a n t’s r o le in th e o ffen se w i th th e rel ev an tco n d u ctattri b u t ed t o h i m i n cal cu l at i n g h i s b ase of fe ns e l e ve l ; a nd ( 2) the c our tm a y c om pa r e the de fe nda nt ’ s c onduc tt o tha tof othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s i nvol ve d i n the of fe ns e . I d. a t940- 45. W he n the r e l e va nt c onduc ta ttr i but e d t o ade fe nda nti s i de nt i c a l t o hi s a c tua l c onduc t , he c a nnotpr ove thathe i s e nt i t l ed t o a m i no r- rol e a dj ust m entsi m pl y by poi nt i ng t o som e broader sc hem e for w hi ch he w as no thel d acc ou nt abl e. Id. at94 1. In addi t i on , “ [t ] he fa ct tha tade fe nda nt ’ s r ol e m a y be l e s s tha n tha tof othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s e nga ge d i n the r e le v a n t c o n d u c t 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

fe n s e , s in c e it is p o s s ib le tha tnone a r e m i nororm i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nt s . ” I d. a t944.Velasque z’s argument that the di strict court erre d when it failed to ex plicitlyconsider the 2 relevant factors in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3( a) is w ithout merit. “So long a s the district court’s c onclusion as to defendant’s rolein the offense is supported by the re cord, and the court has res o l v ed any disputed fac tual issues in conformity with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)( 1), a simpl e statement of the district court’s c onclusion is sufficient.” D e Va ron, 175 F .3d at 947. 5 H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e r ri n de ny i ng V e l a s que z ’ s r e que s tfor a m i t i gat i ng rol e r educt i on . U nd erthe fi rs tpron g o f the D e V ar on t es t , the court h e ld V e la s q u e z a c c o u n ta b le fo ro n ly th e d r u g s a b o a r d th e g o - fa s t b o a t. V el asq u ez’ s actu al an d rel ev an tco n d u ctw ere th e sam e, an d h e d i d n o tp l ay a m in o rr o le in th a t c o n d u c t. U nd erthe se cond pron g o f D e V ar on , the re cord i nd i ca t es thatV el as qu ez w a s th e lo a d g u a r d , w a s p a id $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 , a n d g u a r d e d ala r g e a m o u n t o f c o c a in e . G i ve n the s e fa c t s , V e l a s que z w a s a tl e a s ta s c ul pa bl e a s hi s c o- de fe nda nt s , the ot her m em bers of the bo at ’ s c re w . S ee i d. at94 5 (l i sti ng as re l evantfa ct ors, i nt er a l i a , the a m ountof

dr ugs i nvol ve d, the a m ountof m one y the de fe nda ntw a s t o be pai d and defe nd ant ’ s r ol e i n t he di stri bu t i on ). A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt pr ope r l y de ni e d V e l a s que z am i t i ga t i ng r ol e r e duc t i on. 2 B . B o o k er R ea so n a b l en ess A ft erthe S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, a di stri ct court , i n d et er m i ni ng a r ea sonabl e s ent ence , m ustconsi der the advi sory G ui del i nes r a nge a nd the s e nt e nc i ng fa c t or s i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . S e e 543 U . S . 220, 258-The g overnment argues that weshould review only for plain error

beca use Velasquez failed 3 to object to his sentenceas unre as o n ab l e af t erit was imposed. We need not address this issue be c aus e , even u nder a

re a so na blene ss s tand ard , V e la sque z’s app e al f ails . 6 63, 125 S . C t . 738, 764- 66 ( 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 786 ( 11 th C i r . 2005) . W e r e vi e w ade fe nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e forunr e a s ona bl e ne s s i n l i ghtof the fa c t or s i n § 3553( a ) a nd the r e a s ons gi ve n by the di s tr i c tc our t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i am s, 43 5 F . 3d 13 50 , 13 54 -55 (11 C i r. 20 06 ). th 3 A f te rr e v ie w , w e c a n n o t s a y th a t V e la s q u e z ’s c o n c u r r e n t 1 3 5 - m o n th s e nt e nc e s a r e unr e a s ona bl e . T he 135- m onth s e nt e nc e s a r e a tthe l ow e nd of the advi sory G ui del i nes r ange and b el ow the st atut ory m axi m um t er m of l i fe im p riso n m en t. S ee 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 (b )( 1 ). T h e d istrict co u rt n o ted V elas q u ez ’s m or e for tuna t e ba c kgr ound a nd s t a t e d tha tthe r e w a s no r e a s on t o i m pos e a ny thi ng othe rtha n aG ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 1) ( i nc l udi ng a s afa c t or t o co n si d er th e d efen d an t ’ s h i st o ry an d ch aract eri st i cs). T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so ac kn ow l edged V el as qu ez ’ s argum ent s bas ed on the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, and st at ed th a t it w a s n o n e th e le s s im p o s in g as e n te n c e w ith in th e a d v is o r y G u id e lin e s r a n g e . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S cott , 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 29 (11 C i r. 20 05 ) ( concl ud i ng that th B o o k e rd o e s n o t r e q u ir e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to d is c u s s e a c h § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) fa c to r ) . N ot hi ng i n t he re cord conv i nces us thatV el as qu ez ’ s 135 -m on th sent ence s are un re as on abl e. AF F I RME D.