FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 28, 2005 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. 04- 15740 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 7 7 - CR- T- 2 5 - M SS 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 E M I L I O S A N C H E Z C I F U E N T E S , 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

_________________________ ( N ove m be r28, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E m ilio S a n c h e z C if

u e n te s ap p e a ls h is 1 3 5 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rc o n s p ir a c y to 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 w hi l e onboa r d a2

v e s s e l s u b

j e c tt o th e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f th e U n i t e d St a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 4 6 U . S. C. § 1903( a ) , ( g) , (

j ) a nd 21 U . S . C . § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) . W e R E M A N D f or re se nt enci ng and D IS M IS S as t o h i s s ent ence appeal w ai ver. I . B AC KG RO UN D In F ebruary , 20 04 , se vera l i nd i vi du al s, i ncl ud i ng C i fuent es , depart ed C ol om bi aon af

i s hi ng ve s s e l be a r i ng the C ol om bi a n f l a g w i th the i nt e nt i on of sm ug gl i ng a l oad o f c ocai ne. O n o r abo ut21 F ebruary20 04 , a U ni t ed S t at es a i r c r a f ts pott e d the boa tappr oxi m a t e l y 432 na ut i c a l m i l e s s outh of A c apul c o, M exi co. A U ni t ed S t at es C oastG uard cutt eri nt er ce pt ed the bo at , w hi ch w as bo ar ded. In ac cordance w i th a bi l at er al agre em entw i th the C ol om bi an go vernm ent , l aw enforce m entagent s s ea rc hed the bo at . C on ce al ed i n a hi dd en c om pa r tm e nt , the y f

ound 214 ba l e s of

c oc a i ne , w e i ghi ng at ot a l of 4, 853 k ilo g r a m s . S ubs e que nt l y , C i f

ue nt e s w a s one of

f our t e e n m e n na m e d i n atw o- c ount i nd i ctm ent . H e a nd the others w er e c harged w i th v i ol at i on of 46 U . S . C . § 1 90 3 (a) , (g), and (j ) a nd 21 U . S . C . § 9 60 (b)( 1)(B )( i i ) ( C ou ntO ne) a nd 46 U . S . C . § 1 90 3 (a) a nd ( g) , 18 U . S . C . § 2, a nd 21 U . S . C . § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) ( C ountT w o) . T he in d ic tm e n t a ls o in c lu d e d af o r f e itu r e p r o v is io n . A ppe a r i ng be f

or e am a gi s tr a t e j udge a thi s c ha nge - of - pl e ahe a r i ng,The district cour t did formally

dismiss Count Two at the sentenc ing he aring . R3 at 9. 1 3 C i f ue nt e s , us i ng a n i nt e rpr e t e r , a gr e e d t o pl e a d gui l ty t o C ountO ne of the i ndi c tm e ntpur s ua ntt o aw r i tt e n pl e aa gr e e m e nt . A s pa r tof the pl e aa gr e e m e nt , the gove rnm e ntpr om i s e d t o m ove f ordi s m i s s a l of

C ountT w o a tthe t i m e of s e nt e nc i ng. R 2 a t11. T he pl e aa gr e e m e ntc ont a i ne d apr ovi s i on t i t l e d “ A ppe a l of

1 S e nt e nc e ; W a i ve r , ” w hi c h s t a t e d: T h e d ef en d an t u n d er stan d s a n d ac k n o w led g es th at d ef en d an t’ s s e nt e nc e w i l l be de t e rm i ne d a nd i m pos e d i n c onf orm a nc e w i th the C om pr e he ns i ve C r i m e C ontr ol A c tof 1984 a nd the f

e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s . D e f

e nda nti s a l s o a w a r e tha tas e nt e nc e i m pos e d unde rthe sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es d o es n o tp ro v i d e fo r p aro l e. K n o w i n g th ese f a c t s , the de f

e nda nta gr e e s tha tthi s C ourtha s j ur i s di c t i on a nd autho ri ty t o i m po se any s ent ence up t o the st atut ory m axi m um se t f or th f orthe of f e ns e a nd pur s ua ntt o the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s a nd e xpr e s s l y w a i ve s the r i ghtt o appe a l de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e , di r e c t l y or c ol l a t e r a l l y , on a ny gr ound . . . e xc e ptf ora n upw a r d de pa r tur e by the se nt enci ng j ud ge, a s ent ence abov e the st atut ory m axi m um , or a sen t en ce i n v i o l at i o n o f th e l aw ap artfro m th e sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es; prov i ded, ho w ever , thati f the go vernm entexer ci se s i t s r i gh tt o app ea l th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d , . . . th e d e f e n d a n t is r e le a s e d f

r o m th is w a iv e r. .

. . R 1- 134 a t13. D u r in g th e p le ac o llo q u y , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e in f o rm e d C if

u e n te s th a t h is p le aa g r e e m e n t c o n ta in e d as e n te n c e ap p e a l w a v ie r . R 2 a t 1 8 . T h e m a g is tr a te j udge e xpl a i ne d t o C i f

ue nt e s tha t , by s i gni ng the pl e aa gr e e m e nt , he w a s gi vi ng up hi s r i ghtt o f

i l e a n appe a l e xc e pti n “ ve ryl i m i t e d c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” I d. T heThe g overnment stated on the re cord that it did notintend t o h av e C i fuente s waive a ny 2 i s s u es with respect to Blake ly . R2 at 9. The g overnment did not foreseeany Blakely or enhanc ement issues in the ca se. I d. 4 m a gi s tr a t e j udge i nf

orm e d C i f

ue nt e s tha the c oul d f

i l e a n appe a l onl y i f: ( 1) the gove rnm e ntf

i l e d a n appe a l , ( 2) the c our ti m pos e d as e nt e nc e i n e xc e s s of the s t a tut ory orS e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s m a xi m um , ( 3) the s e nt e nc e w a s i n vi ol a t i on of the l aw apartfr om the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, or (4) the i ss ue w as ra i se d u nd er B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531 ( 2004) . I d. a t18- 19. 2 T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge a l s o a s ke d C i f ue nt e s i f he unde r s t ood tha t , out s i de of the s e l i m i t e d c i r c um s t a nc e s , the appe a l s c our ti n a l l l i ke l i hood w oul d r e j e c tthe appeal w i tho utre ac hi ng the m er i t s bec ause of hi s w ai ver, t o w hi ch C i fuent es r e p lie d , “Y e s .” I d . a t 1 9 . T o c o n f irm th is , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e a s k e d C if u e n te s if he un ders t oo d h i s r i gh tt o fi l e a n app ea l , t o w hi ch C i fuent es re pl i ed, “ Y es . ” I d. at 2 0 . T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e th e n p r o c e e d e d to a s k h im if h e h a d “v o lu n ta r ily w a iv e [ d ] th a t r ig h t a s a g r e e d to in th is p le aa g r e e m e n t? ” C if u e n te s a g a in r e p lie d in the a f f i rm a t i ve . I d. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge the n e nt e r e d ar e por ta nd r e c o m m e n d a tio n r e c o m m e n d in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c c e p t th e p le aa g r e e m e n t. P u r s u a n t to th e r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c c e p te d th e g u ilty p le a . T he P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eport(“ P S I” ) c al cul at ed a bas e off ense l evel5

of 38 , a tw o-l evel decr ea se for m ee t i ng the sa fe ty- val ve prov i si on s, a tw o-l evel r e d u c tio n f

o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility , a n d ao n e - le v e l r e d u c tio n f o ratim e ly gu i l ty pl ea , for at ot al offe nse l evel of 33 . C i fuent es ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory w a s I , a nd the P S I c a l c ul a t e d as e nt e nc e be tw e e n 135 t o 168 m onths of im p r is o n m e n t. C if

u e n te s d id n o t o b

je c t to a n y o f

th e P S I ’s c a lc u la tio n s . E ve n though C i f

ue nt e s ha d notobj e c t e d t o the P S I ’ s f a i l ur e t o r e c om m e nd a m i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on, a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng the di s tr i c tj udge s t a t e d f orthe r e c or d tha ti tw oul d ha ve ove rrul e d a ny s uc h obj e c t i on i n l i ghtof the c ontr ol l i ng l a w a nd the qua nt i ty of

drugs i nvol ve d. R 3 a t4- 5. A s t o the l e ngth of the se nt ence , the courtst at ed thati ti nt ended t o tre atC i fuent es the sa m e a s the other codefendant s w i th the sa m e off ense l evel and cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory w ho pl ed

“ stra i gh tup , ” by s ent enci ng hi m t o the l ow end o f the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes ra ng e. Id. at6. W hen asked i f he had anythi ng t o sayi n m i t i gat i on , C i fuent es a s ke d the c our tt o s e nt e nc e hi m be tw e e n z e r o a nd l i f e w i thoutr e ga r d t o the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a nd the m i ni m um m a nda t ory ba s e d on 18 U . S . C . § 3553, c i t i ng t o B l a ke l y . I d. I n r e s pons e the f ol l ow i ng e xc ha nge oc c urr e d: T H E C O U R T : N o, you h ave t o m ake the m ot i on , you n ever know w ha ti s goi ng t o happe n. I ’ l l de ny – I ’ m goi ng t o – t o the e xt e nt th a t is am o tio n , I w ill d e n y it. A s w e a l l kn ow , the E l eventh C i rc ui tC ou rtof A pp ea l s has w e i ghe d i n on the B l a ke l y c ontr ove r s y , he l d i n U ni t e d S t a t e s ve r s us R e e s e the F e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s w e r e nota f f e c t e d by6

B l akel y, al tho ug h i t ’ s i nt er es t i ng . T hey s aythe D i stri ctC ou rt s m ay c o n s id e rd o in g s o m e th in g d if f e r e n tly , b u t th e y d id n ’t te ll u s w h a t it wa s we s h o u l d b e d o i n g , a n d I d o n ’ tk n o w. M R . S M I T H [ C i f

une t e s ’ s a tt orne y ] : I ’ m a s ki ng tha the be se nt ence d b etw ee n zer o t o l i fe . T H E C O U R T : W el l , l etm e a sk you, w hati f I gi ve hi m m ore th a n 1 3 5 mo n th s a n d h e l d th e g u i d e l i n e s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l ; wh a tth e n ? I s h e s tu c k w ith th a t? M R . S M I T H : P r obabl y w oul d be . I don’ tthi nk he m e r i t s 135 m o n th s b a s e d u p o n h is c o n d u c t. T H E C O U R T : W el l , I dec l i ne t o d o that . If the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rti n thei r i nfi ni t e w i sdom sa y the gu i del i nes a re u n c o n s titu tio n a l, w e ’ll ju s t d e a l w ith th e s e c a s e s a g a in , th a t’s a ll. I d. a t6- 7. A tthe c onc l us i on of the he a r i ng, the c our ts e nt e nc e d C i f ue nt e s t o 135 m on ths of i m pri sonm entfol l ow ed by a three -y ea r t erm of supervi se d rel ea se . Id. at 8. T he c our ta l s o i nf

orm e d C i f

ue nt e s tha tthe r e w a s aw a i ve r - of - appe a l pr ovi s i on in h is p le aa g r e e m e n t, a n d , to th e e x te n t h is p le aa g r e e m e n t a llo w e d it, h e w o u ld ha ve t o f i l e a ny appe a l w i thi n t e n da y s f r om the j udgm e ntorhe w oul d w a i ve a ny r i ghtt o appe a l . I d. a t9- 10. O n appe a l , C i f

ue nt e s a r gue s tha t , be c a us e he w a s s e nt e nc e d pur s ua ntt o a m a nda t ory s e nt e nc i ng s c he m e , hi s c a s e s houl d be r e m a nde d t o the di s tr i c tc our tf or r e s e nt e nc i ng. H e a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha the w a s not am i n o ro rm i n i m a l p a r t i c i p a n ti n th e o f f e n s e f o rp u rp o s e s o f

ap p l y i n g U. S . S . G.7

§ 3B 1. 2. T he gove rnm e ntc onc e de s tha tr e m a nd i s ne c e s s a ry t o c orr e c tthe ap p lic a tio n o f

th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry b u t a r g u e s th a t w e s h o u ld di sm i ss the appeal as t o the m i t i gat i ng -r ol e r educt i on because the cl ai m i s barre d by C i fuent es ’ s val i d sent ence -app ea l w ai ver. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S t a tut ory B ooke rE rr or B ec ause of the m andat ory nature of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, C i fuent es a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw a s unabl e t o s e nt e nc e hi m i n a c c or da nc e w i th the st atut ory di ct at es of 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3. If i thad n otbeen for the m andat ory nature o f th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , C if u e n te s a s s e r ts th a t th e c o u r t m ig h t h a v e ta k e n in to consi dera t i on a m ul t i tud e of f ac t ors abo uthi s l i fe , such as hi s i m po veri shed l i f e s ty l e , i n f

a s hi oni ng ar e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e . M or e ove r , i f i tha d notbe e n f

orthe m andat ory nature of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, C i fuent es cont ends thatthe court w oul d ha ve be e n abl e t o c ons i de rthe f ul l e xt e ntof

hi s c oope r a t i on a nd r ol e i n the o f f e n s e , w h ic h m ig h t h a v e r e s u lte d in ale s s e rs e n te n c e . H e f u r th e rc o n te n d s th a t, in lig h t o f

th e c o u r t’s s ta te m e n ts a t s e n te n c in g , th e g o v e rn m e n t w ill n o t b e ab le to s h o w th a t th e e rr o rw a s h a rm le s s b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. I n A ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha t“ [ o] the rtha n the f a c tof apr i orc onvi c t i on, a ny f a c ttha ti nc r e a s e s the pe na l ty f orac r i m e be y ond the8

pr e s c r i be d s t a tut ory m a xi m um m us tbe s ubm i tt e d t o aj ury , a nd pr ove d be y ond a re as on abl e dou bt . ” 530 U . S . 46 6, 49 0, 12 0 S . C t . 23 48 , 23 62 -63 (20 00 ). In B la k e ly , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e v e r s e d a n u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e im p o s e d u n d e rth e S ta te of W a s hi ngt on’ s s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s ba s e d s ol e l y on j udi c i a l f a c t f i ndi ng a nd c l a r i f i e d “ tha tthe ‘ s t a tut ory m a xi m um ’ f orA ppr e ndi purpos e s i s the m a xi m um se nt ence a j ud ge m ayi m po se sol el y on the basi s of the fa ct s r ef l ec t ed i n the j ury ve r di c tora dm i tt e d by the de f e nda nt . ” 542 U . S . a t___, 124 S . C t . a t2537. I n a footno t e, ho w ever , the C ou rtexpl i ci t l y r em arked that“ [t ] he F eder al G ui del i nes a re no tbefore us, and w e e xp re ss no op i ni on on them . ” I d. at___ n . 9, 12 4 S . C t . at 2538 n. 9. R e s o lv in g ac o n s titu tio n a l q u e s tio n le f t o p e n in B la k e ly , th e C o u r t h e ld in U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . __ , 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), thatthe m andat ory n a tu r e o f th e F e d e r a l G u id e lin e s r e n d e r e d th e m in c o m p a tib le w ith th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t’s g u a r a n te e to th e r ig h t to aju ry tr ia l. I d . a t _

_, 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 4 9 - 5 1 . I n as e c o n d a n d s e p a r a te m a jo r ity o p in io n , th e C o u r t in B o o k e rc o n c lu d e d th a t, to be s tpr e s e rve C ongr e s s ’ s i nt e nti n e na c t i ng the S e nt e nc i ng R e f orm A c tof

1984, the approp ri at e r em edy w as t o “ exci se ” tw o st atut es : (1) 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(b)(1), r e q u ir in g as e n te n c e w ith in th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s r a n g e , ab s e n t ad e p a r tu r e , a nd ( 2) 18 U . S . C . § 3742( e ) , e s t abl i s hi ng s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w on appe a l , i nc l udi ngW e re view this issue despite the fact that Cifuentes e x ecute d a sentence a ppeal waiver 3 beca use the g overnment assented that a ny Blakely argument was not waived. 9 d e n o v o r e v ie w o f

d e p a r tu r e s f

r o m th e ap p lic ab le g u id e lin e r a n g e , e f f e c tiv e ly r e n d e r in g th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a d v is o ry o n ly . I d . a t _

__ , 1 2 5 S .C t. a t 7 6 4 . T he S upr e m e C our tnot e d, how e ve r , tha tc our t s m us tc ont i nue t o c ons ul tthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , “ t oge the rw i th othe rs e nt e nc i ng goa l s . ” I d. W e h a v e c la r if

ie d th a t th e r e a r e tw o ty p e s o f B o o k e re rr o r : ( 1 ) S ix th A m e ndm e nte rr orba s e d upon s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt s ne i the ra dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntnors ubm i tt e d t o aj ury a nd pr ove d be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt ; a nd ( 2 ) s ta tu to ry e rr o rb a s e d u p o n s e n te n c in g u n d e ram a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s s y s te m . U ni t ed S t at es v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). “ W here there is atim e ly o b

je c tio n , w e r e v ie w th e d e f e n d a n t’s B o o k e rc la im in o r d e rto de t e rm i ne w he the rthe e rr orw a s ha rm l e s s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a the ni a , 409 F . 3d 3 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r i a m ) . We h a v e e x p l a i n e d th a t“ [ t ] h e r e a r e two ha rm l e s s e rr ors t a nda r ds . O ne of the m appl i e s t o B ooke rc ons t i tut i ona l e rr or s , the other t o B oo ker s t atut ory e rr ors. ” I d. “ [C ] on st i tut i on al errors ar e harm l es s w here the gove rnm e ntc a n s how , be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt , tha tthe e rr ordi d not c ontr i but e t o the de f

e nda nt ’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e . B ooke rs t a tut ory e rr or s , on the othe rha nd, a r e s ubj e c tt o the l e s s de m a ndi ng t e s ttha ti s appl i c abl e t o nonc o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r s .” I d . a t 1 2 9 1 - 9 2 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W e f u r th e re x p la in e d :10

A n o n - c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o ris h a rm le s s if , v ie w in g th e p r o c e e d in g s in the i re nt i r e ty , ac our tde t e rm i ne s tha tthe e rr ordi d nota f f e c tthe s e n te n c e , o rh a d b u t v e ry s lig h t e f f e c t. I f o n e c a n s a y w ith f

a ir as sura nce thatthe se nt ence w as no tsubst ant i al l y s w ay ed by the error, th e s e n te n c e is d u e to b e a f f irm e d e v e n th o u g h th e r e w a s e rr o r . I d. a t1292 ( c i t a t i ons , a l t e r a t i ons , a nd om i s s i ons om i tt e d) . N one the l e s s , w e ha ve s t a t e d tha t“ [ t ] he non- c ons t i tut i ona l ha rm l e s s e rr ors t a nda r d i s note a s y f orthe g o v e rn m e n t to m e e t. I d . T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e in th is c a s e s ta te d : “I f th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t in th e irin f in ite w is d o m s a y th e g u id e lin e s a r e u n c o n s titu tio n a l, w e ’ll ju s t d e a l w ith th e s e c a s e s a g a in , th a t’s a ll.” R 3 a t 7 . B a s e d o n th is s ta te m e n t, w e c a n n o t s a y w ith fa i r a ss urance thatthe se nt ence w as no tsubst ant i al l y s w ay ed by the error. S ee M atheni a, 40 9 F . 3d at12 92 . A cc ordi ng l y, the go vernm entca nn otca rry i t s burden o f s h o wi n g th a tth e s t a tu t o ry e rr o rwa s h a rm l e s s , a s i th a s c o n c e d e d . T h e r e f o r e , we vaca t e a nd re m and for res ent enci ng for the sol e purpo se of havi ng the di stri ctcourt appl y the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes i n an adv i soryfa shi on i n acc ordance w i th B oo ker. B . S ent ence A pp ea l W ai ver C if u e n te s a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f in d in g th a t h e w a s n o t a m i ni m a l orm i norpa r t i c i pa nti n the of f e ns e . H e c ont e nds tha tthe c our tf oc us e d on th e a m o u n to f

c o c a i n e i n v o l v e d t o th e e x c l u s i o n o f o th e rm i t i g a t i n g f

a c t o r s . He no t es thatou r c ou rti n U ni t ed S t at es v. D eV ar on , 17 5 F . 3d 93 0 (11 C i r. 19 99 ) ( en th11

ba nc ) , doe s notpr e c l ude a n i ndi vi dua l e nga ge d i n the tr a ns por tof drugs f r om r e c e i vi ng am i nor - r ol e a dj us tm e nt . C i f ue nt e s di s t i ngui s he s hi m s e l f f r om the c o u r ie rin D e V a r o n b e c a u s e h e w a s alo w - le v e l c r e w m e m b e rw ith n o a u th o r ity w h o h a d n o r o le in p la n n in g th e o p e r a tio n n o ra n y e q u ity in te r e s t in th e d ru g s . B ec ause of hi s l ac k o f autho ri ty a nd hi s s t atus as a l ow -l evel cr ew m an, C i fuent es a r gue s tha the w a s l e s s c ul pabl e tha n m a ny of thos e i nvol ve d i n the c ons pi r a c y a nd, thu s, the courterre d w hen i tdi d n otgranthi m a m i no r- rol e r educt i on . C i fuent es d o e s n o t a r g u e c o n c e rn in g th e im p lic a tio n s o f h is s e n te n c e ap p e a l w a iv e ro n th is is s u e . W e r evi ew the prov i si on s of ase nt ence appeal w ai ver de nov o. U ni t ed S t at es v. W ea ver, 27 5 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 33 n. 21 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). W e have re cogn i ze d th a t “[ p ]le ab a r g a in s . . . a r e lik e c o n tr a c ts a n d s h o u ld b e in te rp r e te d in a c c o r d w ith w h a t th e p a r tie s in te n d e d .” U n ite d S ta te s v . R u b b o , 3 9 6 F .3 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 2 0 0 5 W L 2 4 9 3 8 6 7 ( U .S . O c t. 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( N o . 0 4 - 1 6 6 3 ) .

“ ‘ W ai ver w i l l be enforce d i f the go vernm entdem on stra t es ei ther: (1) the di stri ct courtspec i fi ca l l y quest i on ed the defendantabou tthe w ai ver duri ng the pl ea c ol l oquy , or( 2) the r e c or d c l e a r l y s how s tha tthe de f e nda ntothe rw i s e unde r s t ood the f ul l s i gni f i c a nc e of the w a i ve r . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r i na r d- H e nry , 399 F . 3d 1294, 1296 ( 11th C i r . ) ( pe rc ur i a m ) , c e rt . de ni e d, __ U . S . __, 125 S . C t . 227912

(200 5). M oreover, “ [a ] n app ea l w avi eri ncl ud es the w avi erof the ri gh tt o app ea l d if f ic u lt o rd e b a tab le le g a l is s u e s o re v e n b la ta n t e rr o r .” I d . C i fuent es kn ow i ng l y a nd vo l un t ar i l y w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o app ea l the di stri ct court ’ s S ent enci ng G ui del i nes det erm i nat i on s. B y a rgui ng thatthe di stri ctcourt s houl d ha ve f

ound hi m t o be am i ni m a l orm i norpa r t i c i pa nt , C i f ue nt e s i s appe a l i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i ca t i on of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, w hi ch the w ai ver e xpl i c i t l y pr ohi bi t s . I ti s appa r e ntf r om the r e c or d tha tthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge s p e c if ic a lly q u e s tio n e d C if

u e n te s ab o u t th e w a iv e rd u r in g th e p le ac o llo q u y . F u r th e rm o r e , b a s e d o n C if u e n te s ’s a n s w e r s to th e m a g is tr a te ’s q u e s tio n s , h e f u lly u n d er sto o d th e s ig n ifican ce o f th e w aiv er . A cc o rd in g ly, w e d ism iss C ifu en tes’s ap p e a l a s it r e la te s to is s u e o f w h e th e rh e w a s am in im a l o rm in o rp a r tic ip a n t. I I I . CO NC L US I ON C i fu en t es h as ap p eal ed h i s 1 3 5 -m o n th sen t en ce fo r co n sp i racy t o p o ssess 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 onb oard a ves se l subj ec tt o the j uri sdi ct i on of the U ni t ed S t at es base d o n B oo ker a nd se nt ence appe a l w a i ve r . A s w e ha ve e xpl a i ne d, C i f ue nt e s ’ s s e nt e nc e i s V A C A T E D , a nd he w i l l be s e nt e nc e d i n a c c or da nc e w i th B ooke ron r e m a nd. A ddi t i ona l l y , the i s s ue he r a i s e s o n ap p e a l c o n c e rn i n g h i s s e n t e n c e ap p e a l wa i v e ri s DI S MI S S E D. V A C A T E D A N D R E M A N D E D i n p art, D IS M IS S E D i n p art.