FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT DECEMBER 12, 2006 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 1344 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00081 -CR- T- 17-MAP UNITED STAT ES OFAMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us W ILDER ARLEY SALDRRIAGA-PALACIO, a. k. a. Wild er Arl ey

Sal da rri a Pal aci o, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(D ec em be r 12, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant W ild er A rl ey S al dr ri ag a- Pa la ci o a

ppe al s hi s co nvi ct ionand 2 10- m onth se nte nc e fo r (1 ) poss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibute f ive2

kil ogr am s or

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

ave sse l su

bj ec t t o th e j ur isd ic tio n of the U nit ed

S tate s, in vio latio n of

46 App. U
. S. C. § 19 03( a) , ( g) ; 18 U
. S. C. § 2; and 21 U
. S. C. § 96 0( b) (1 )( B) (i i) ; and ( 2) c onsp ir ac y to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibute fi ve kil ogr am s or

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

ave sse l su

bj ec t t o th e j ur isd ic tio n of the U nit ed

S tate s, in vio latio n of

46 App. U
. S. C. § 19 03( a) , ( g) , and ( j ); and 2 1 U
. S
. C
. § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i i )
. N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Sa ldr ri ag a- Pa la ci o w as arr es te d ona“ go- fa st” boat c ar ry ing 89 b al es of cocaine that w eighed approxi m ately 2,000 kilo gram s. H e filed a financial af fi davit c la im ing ind ige nc e; and the dis tr ic t c ourt a ppoi nte d alaw y er

to re pr es en t him
. L at er , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d am oti on b y Ro y K ah n to sub sti tut e him se lf
as S al dr ri ag a- Pa la ci o’ s pr ivate ly -r et ai ne d law y er . T he gov er nm en t the n f

ile d a
m oti on r eque sti ng a

he ar ing about

the sourc e of

le ga l f ee s pa id t o K ah n onbe ha lf of S al dr ri ag a- Pa la ci o. I n it s m oti on, the gov er nm en t arg ue d th at , be ca

use Sa ldr ri ag a- Pa la ci o in iti al ly

c la im ed to be ind ige nt, the c ri m ina l e nte rp ri se dir ec tin g th e co ca ine de liv er y f or w hic h S al dr

ri ag a- Pa la ci o w as arr es te d m igh t be p ayi n g fo r h i s l aw yer, wh i ch wo u l dcr ea t e aco n fl i cto f i n t er es tre qu i ri n g Ka h n ’s disqu alification. Am agistrate j udge granted the go vernm ent’ s m otion for a he ari ng .3

A t the he ar ing , K ahn e xpl ai ne d th at aCo lom bian law y er

c ont ac te d hi m

on be ha lf of S al dr ri ag a- Pa la ci o’ s “ U nc le W al te r, ” w ho w an te d to pay K ah n to
re pr es en t S al dr

ri ag a- Pa la ci o. T he m ag istrate c onc lud ed that K ah n a

ppe ar ed to have ac onf

lic t of int er es t a bout howhe w as r et ai ne d and tha t hi s r ep re se ntatio n of Sal drria ga -Pal aci o c as t d oubton th e fai rn es s o f th e p en di ng leg al pro ceed in gs . The m ag is tra te di sq ua li fie d Kah n fr om rep res en ti ng Sal drria ga -Pal aci o. Sa ldr ri ag a- Pa la ci o a

ppe al ed the m ag istrate ’ s de ci sio n to the dis tr ic t c ourt; an d whi le th is ap pe al was p en di ng , he a ga in was a ss ig ne d aco urt-app oi nt edlawyer. Be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt r ule d onhis appe al of

the m ag istrate ’ s di squa lif ic at ion
or de r, S al dr

ri ag a- Pa la ci o pl ea de d gu ilty to both c ount s inhis ind ic tm en t w ith out a pl ea ag reem en t. O n a ppe al , S al dr

ri ag a- Pa la ci o f

ir st arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s dis cr et ionin dis qua lif

y ing his pr ivate ly -r et ai ne d law y er , w hic h de nie d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o th e law y er of his c hoi ce . H e co nte nds that hi s un cl e, and n ot
a thi rd -p ar

ty c ri m ina l e nte rp ri se , w as pay ing his le ga l f ee s to K ah n and tha t no
co nf lic t of int er es t e xis te d thro ugh K ah n’ s r ep re se ntatio n. Sa ldr ri ag a- Pa la ci o a lso
as se rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t r ev ie win a tim el y m anne r his appe al of

the
m ag is tra te ’s ord er d is qu al ifyin g Kah n.Be cause we c onclude that Saldrr iag a-Pala cio ha s wa i v ed a challenge to the mag istrate’s 1 dis qu a lif ic atio n o rd e r, we de ny

a s mo ot h is m oti on

fo r c on sid e ratio n o f se a le d do c ume nts re late d to the mag istrate’s or der. 4 T he gov er

nm en t r es pond s th at

S al dr ri ag a- Pa la ci o w ai ve d hi s c ha lle nge to the m agistrate’ s disq ualification order when he knowingl y and volu ntarily

entered an uncond ition al guiltyplea. W e agre e. 1 “A d e f e n d an t ’s u n c o n d i t i o n a l p l e ao f g u i l ty, ma d e kn o w i n g l y, v o l u n t ar i l y,
an d w iththe be ne fi t of

c om pe te nt c ouns el , w ai ve s a ll non- j ur isd ic tio na l de fe ct s in that de fe ndant’ s c ourt pr oc ee din gs. ” U nit ed S tate s v. P ie rr e, 120 F
. 3d 1 153, 115 5 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation and alteration om itted); see also United State s v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1322 (11th Cir. 2003) (concluding th at a def endant waived right to appeal denial of m otion for a j udge’s r ecusal by entering an uncond ition al gui lty ple a)
. “ Ade fe ndant who w ish es to pr es er ve appe llate r ev ie wof

anon j ur isd ic tio na l de fe ct

w hil e at the sam e tim e ple ad ing gui lty c ando s o on ly

by entering a ‘ conditi onal plea’ in accordance with [Fe deral Rule of Crim inal Pr oc ed ur e] 11( a) (2 ). ” P ie rr e, 120 F
. 3d at 11 55. H er e, the r ec or d r ef

le ct s th at S al dr ri ag a- Pa la ci o’ s gu ilty

ple a w as m ad e knowingl y

and volu ntarily

and that, although h is appeal of the m agistrate’ s order dis qua lif y ing K ahn w as pe ndi ng at the ti m e of his gui lty

ple a, S al dr

ri ag a- Pa la ci o did not e nte r -- or

a tte m pt t o e nte r -- ac ondi tio na l pl ea that pr es er

ve d hi s r igh t t oWe are not persua ded by Saldrriag a-Pala cio’s arguments that (1) before acc eptinghis guilty plea, 2 the mag istrate should have explained that Saldrriag a-Pala cio w as wa iving his right to appeal the disqualification orde r and ( 2) his guilty plea wa s not knowing a

nd voluntary beca

use he w as unaw are that an un con dit ion a l pl e a wa ive d h is r ight t o a

pp e a l th e dis qu a lif

ic atio n o rd e r. No thi ngin F e d. R.C ri m.P . 1 1 r e qu ir e d th e magi str ate to i nf or m Sa ldr ri a g a -P a la c io a

bo ut a c on dit ion a l guil ty plea. And w e conc lude that Saldrriag a-Pala cio’s conte ntion that his court-appointed lawy er had a conflict of inter est in repr esenting him -- because this lawyer had a financial intere st in remaining Saldrriag a-Pala cio’s counse l and there fore was not motivated to ap p eal the ma g istrate’s dis qu a lif ic atio n o rd e r - - i s w ith out me ri t. 5 pursue an appeal of the disqu alification order. T herefor e, by entering an 2
u n co n d i t i o n al g u i l ty p l ea , S al drr i ag a- Pa l ac i o wa i v edh i s ap p ea l o f t h e mag i s tra t e’s
o rd erd i s qu al i fyi n g Ka h n ; an dwe wi l l n o tco n s i d erwh et h erKa h n ’s dis qua lif ic at ionw as an a

buse of the m ag istrate ’ s di sc re tio n. Saldrria ga-Pala cio next argues that his 2 10-m onth sentence w as unr ea sona

ble
. H e co nte nds that, be ca use his c o- de fe ndants - - w iththe e xc ep tio n of the captain of the “ go-fast” boat -- r eceived 135-m onth sentences, the district court failed to avoid sentencing disparities in calculating his sentence. S aldrriagaPa la ci o a lso a sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c onsi de r that he ( 1) w as a t the low es t l ev el of

the sm uggl ing ope ratio n, ( 2) r ec ei ve d li ttl e co m pe nsatio n f

or his work on the boat, and (3) w as uneducated, poor, y oung , and un soph isticated. I n ad dit ion , he arg ue s th at

his se nte nc e w as unr ea sona ble be ca use he w as de nie d th e lawy er of his choice at se ntencing, when he w ithdrew an obj ection to the dis trict
co urt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

ase nte nc ing e nhanc em en t f or f ir earm pos se ssi on.6

Sa ldr ri ag a- Pa la ci o w as se nte nc ed a ft er the S upr em e Co urt i ssu ed it s de ci sio n inU nit ed

S tate s v. Bo oke r, 125 S
. Ct
. 738 ( 2005 ); so w e re vie whis
se nt en ce fo r rea so nabl en es s i n t he li gh t o f th e fac to rs setou t i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Un it edSta te s v . W in in ge ar, 4 22 F.3d12 41 , 12 44 -4 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. U nde r se ct ion355 3( a) , adis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r, am ong oth er thi ngs, the
natur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse , the his tor

y and c hara ct er ist ic s of

the defendant, the need f

or adequate deterr ence and protection of the publi c, policy state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the m ed ic al and ed uc at ion al ne ed s of

the de fe ndant, and the ne ed to av oid unw ar rante d se nte nc ing dis pari tie s. S ee 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a) (1 )- (7 ). “ Re vie wf or r ea sona ble ne ss i s de fe re nti al ”; and “ the party w ho c ha lle nge s th e se nte nc e be ar s th e bur de n of
es ta bli shi ng tha t the se nte nc e is unr ea sona ble in the li ght

of [ the ] r ec or d and the fa ct or s inse ct ion355 3( a)
. ” S ee U nit ed S tate s v. T al le y , 431 F
. 3d 7 84, 788 ( 11th Ci r. 20 05 ). W e co nc lud e that S al dr

ri ag a- Pa la ci o’ s se nte nc e w as r ea sona ble
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed

him to the low es t po int

of his G uid el ine s r an ge of

210 to 262 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. S ee id. ( not ing that “ or din ar ily w e w oul d e xpe ct

a se nt en ce wi th in th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e to be reas on ab le ”).Th e g ov e rnme nt a sse rt s that, a lth ou g h Sa ldr ri a g a -P a la c io a sk e d th e dis tr ic t c ourt to s e nte nc e him 3 below his Guidelines rang e based on application of the sec tion 3553(a) f actor s, his failure to objec t afte r sentencing -- either t hat his sentence was unre asonable or that the district cour t did not consider proper ly the sec tion 3553(a) f

actor s in determininghis sentence -- indicates that we should review Saldrriag a-Pala cio’s challeng e to the rea sonablene ss of his sentence only for plain e rror . We need not decide this issue bec ause, e ven under a re asonable n es s s t an dard, Saldrriag a-Pala cio’s appe al fa ils
. 7 Ina ddi tio n, in se nte nc ing S al dr ri ag a- Pa la ci o, the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th e section 355 3(a) f

actors and com

m ented in particular on Saldrriaga- Palac io’ s age, his e duc at ion al and w ork ba ck gr ound , and the se ri ousn es s of his of fe nse . T he district court conclud ed that the sentence im posed was not greater than nece ssary to c om ply w iththe statut or

y pur pose s of se nte nc ing
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt w as not required to discuss all of the section 3553 (a) factors at the sentencing h earing. See United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 132 4, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (e xplaini ng that

“ noth ing in Booker or elsewhere r equires the district court to state on th e re cord that i t ha s e xpl ic itl y

c onsi de re d e ac h of

the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s or to dis cu ss ea chof the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s” ). A nd w e not e that no t be ing r ep re se nte d by th e d efen da nt ’s cho ic e o f la wy er i s n ota se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 1 )- (7 ). No th i n g i nth e r ec o rdco n v i n ce s u s th atSa l drr i ag a- Pa l ac i o ’s
se nte nc e w as unr ea sona

ble in the li ght

of the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s. 3 AFFIRMED.