FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 15 , 2005 THOMAS 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 05- 1137 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-20805 -CR- CMA UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ALVARO SANTOS-PLATA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 15, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN A and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appellant Alvar o Santos-Plata appeals his 72-m onth concurrent sentences fo r co nspi ra cy

to im port and i m

porta tio n of

he ro in, in vio la tio n of

212

U . S. C. §§ 9 52( a) and 9 63; and c onsp ir ac y to poss es s and p oss es sio n w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te he ro in, in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ) an d 84 6. O n a ppe al , Santos-Plata argues that his sent ence w as unreasonable in ligh t of the district co urt’ s e rr one ous de nia l of am ino r- ro le r ed

uc tio n and the S upr em e Co urt’ s r ec en t de ci sio n in United States v. B ooker , 543 U . S. ___ , 125 S . Ct . 738 , 160 L . E d. 2d 621 (200 5). In Booker , the S uprem e Court held that the m andatory nature of the Fe deral Se n t en ci n g Gu i d el i n es re n d er ed th em in co m p at i b l e w i t h th e S i x t h Am en d m en t ’s guara nte e to the r igh t t o aj ur

y tr ia l. 543 U . S. a t __

_, 125 S. Ct . a t 74 9- 51. T he Court decided that the appropriate rem edy wa s to excise two specific statutory pr ovi sio ns whic h m ad e the G uid el ine s m an dator y , the re by r en de ri ng the Gui de li ne s ad vi so ry

on ly. Id . a t __ _, 125 S . Ct . a t 76 4. T he Co urt e xpl ai ne d th at ,

“ [w ] ith out

the ‘ m an da tor

y ’ pr ovi sio n, the A ct

non ethe le ss r equir es j udge s to take ac co unt of the G uid el ine s to ge the r w ithoth er se nte nc ing goa ls” c ont ai ne d in18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Id

. Se ct ion355 3( a) pr ovi de s th at dis tr ic t c ourts i m

posi ng a se nte nc e m

ust f ir st co ns id er, inter ali a , the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse , the his tor

y and ch ar ac te ri sti cs of

the de fe ndant, the ne ed

f or the se nte nc e to r ef

le ct the se ri ousn es s of the of fe nse , pr om ote r es pe ct

f or the law , and p ro vid e j ust pun ish m en t f

or the3

of fe nse , and the kin ds o f se nte nc es and s en te nc ing r an ge e sta bli she d by

the Gui de li ne s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). W e ar e re qui re d to “ re vie wf or unr ea sona

ble ne ss” ase nte nc e im

pose d po stBooker . Booker , 543 U . S. a t __ _, 125 S . Ct . a t 76 5 ( quot at ionand a lte ratio n om itt ed ); se e als o U

nit ed Sta tes v . Craw

ford , 407 F. 3d 11 74, 1178 (11t h Cir. 2005 ) (n oti ng tha t “

Booker e sta bli she d a‘ re as ona

ble ne ss’ standard

f or the se nte nc e fi na lly

im pose d onade fe ndant” ). W e have not ed that, in co nduc tin g a re vie wf or r ea sona ble ne ss, w e “ w oul d no t e xpe ct the dis tr ic t c ourt i n e ve ry c as e to conduct an accountin g of every § 3553 (a) factor . . . a

nd expo und u pon h ow ea ch factor play ed a role in its sentencing decisio n.” United States v. R obles , 408 F . 3d 1324 , 132 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . W e ha ve state d, how ev er , that the dis tr ic t c ourt i s oblig ated “ to calculate co rre ct lythe se nte nc ing r an ge pr es cr ibe d by the Guidelines.” Craw

ford , 40 7 F .3dat 1 17 8. In U nit ed Sta tes v . W

ini nge ar , w e re cently

conducted a reviewof an ap pe llant’ s se nte nc e fo r re as ona ble ne ss and e xpl ai ne d th at the se nte nc e m

ust be re as ona ble in the c ont ex t of

the f ac tor s li ste d in18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) . N o. 05- 1119 8, m anusc ri pt o p. a t 9- 10 ( 11th C ir . A ug. 30, 200 5) . I n a ddi tio n to dis cu ssi ng t h e n a tu r e an dc i r c u ms t a n c e s o f th e o f f e n s e an dth e ap p e l l a n t ’s c r i mi n a l h i s t o ry, w e spe ci fi ca lly

not ed that the se nte nc e im

pose d w as “ one -t en th the le ngth of the4

twenty -y ear statutory

m axim um sentence, ” and held that the sentence wa s reas on ab le ba se d o n t he fact or s l is te d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Id . at 1 0- 11 . W e m ust determ ine whether the district court calculated the Guidelines sentence corre ctly

in order to determ ine whether Santos-Plata’ s sentence wa s reas on ab le . See Craw

ford , 407 F . 3d at 11 78. T he se tw o st ep s w ill be dis cu sse d in tur n. In this case, Santos-Plata c hallenges the com putatio n of the Guidelines range in light of the dis trict court’ s refusal to apply a m inor-role reduction und er U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2( b) . “ Po st- Booker , we co n t i n u e t o re v i ew th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s application o f the G uidelin es j ust as we did pre- Booker .” U nit ed Sta tes v . E lli

s , 491 F.3d 118 9, (11th Cir. 2005 ). W e have “ long and repeatedly held that a district co urt’ s de te rm inatio n of

ade fe ndant’ s r ole in the of fe nse is a fi ndi ng o f fa ct

to be review ed only

for cle ar e rror. ” U

nit ed Sta tes v . D e V

aron , 175 F . 3d 9 30, 937 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) (en ba nc ). “ The pro po ne nt of t he do wnwar d a dju st m en t . . . a l w a ys b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g th e mi t i g a t i n g r o l e i n th e o f f e n s e b y a preponderance of the evidence. ” Id . a t 93 9. “ Inm ak ing the ult im at e de te rm inatio n of the de fe ndant’ s r ole in the of fe nse , the se nte nc ing j udge ha s no duty to m ak e any specific subsidiary

fac tual finding s.” Id

.5

T he S en te nc ing G uid el ine s pe rm it a co urt t o de cr ea se ade fe ndant’ s of fe nse le ve l by tw o po int s if

it f ind s th at the de fe ndant w as a“ m ino r part ic ipant” in the cr im ina l a ct ivi ty . U . S. S. G § 3B 1. 2( b) . Ade fe ndant i s am ino r part ic ipant “ w ho i s less culpable than m ost oth er participants, but whose role could no t be described as m ini m al . ” U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2, c m t. n. 5. In determ ining whether

a m itigatin g role reduction is warr anted, a district co urt “ shou ld b e inf

orm ed by tw o pr inc ipl es dis ce rn ed f ro m the G uid el ine s: f

ir st, the de fe ndant’ s r ole in the r el ev an t c ondu ct f or w hic h [ he ] ha s be enhe ld accountable at sentencing, and, sec ond, [his] role as com pared to that of other participants in [his] r elevant conduct.” D e V aron , 17 5 F .3dat 9 40 . A . Whethe r the D istrict Court Correctly Calculated Santos-Plata’s Guide lin e Ra nge As f or the first prong of the D e V aron te st, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y f ound that S an tos -P la taplay ed

agr eate r ro le than m er el y tr an spor tin g he ro in i nto the United States. T urning to the second prong of the D e V aron te st, the e vid en ce in the record does not sho w that S antos-Plata w as less culpable than m ost oth er participants in th e offe nse. A ccordingly , the district court corr ectly calculated Santos-Plata’ s Guideline range and did not err by ref using to apply

a tw o-level m in or -ro le reduc ti on pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2(b ).6

B . Whethe r Santos-Plata’s Sen tencewas Reasonable Under Booker In this case, we hold th at Santos-Plata’ s sentence as re asonable for several re as ons. F ir st, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s im posi tio n of

ase nte nc e w as pr oc ed

ur al ly proper in that it (1) calculated the Guidelin es range corr ectly , a s discuss ed above; (2) tre ated that Guidelines range as advisory only ; and (3) apparently

considered th e fac to rs in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). See Craw ford , 407 F . 3d at 11 78. S ec ond, Santos-Plata r eceived a r elatively m inim al 72-m onth sentence given the fact that he was s ub

ject t o a m ax im

um sen te nc e o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t. See 21 U. S. C. §§ 8 41( b) (1 )( A )( i) and 9 60( b) (1 )( A ); W ini nge ar , N o. 05-11198 , m anuscript op. at 10- 11. T hir d, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly de te rm ine d th at

U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2 di d no t ap ply , a s di sc uss ed

above , so the c ourt a ct ed r ea sona bly in not im posi ng a se nte nc e w ith in a

r an ge that w oul d have c ontro lle d if § 3B 1. 2 di d a

ppl y . F ourth, the court sentenced Santos-Plata 15 m onth s below the applicable G uidelin e range. Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm S an tos -P la ta ’ s se nte nc es . AFFIRMED.