FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 26, 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- 16140 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 6 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 R A U L A N T O N I O S A N C H E Z A L V A R A D O , 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

_________________________ ( A ugus t26, 2005)

B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

R aul A nt on i o S anchez A l vara do appeal s hi s 135 -m on th sent ence i m po se d a f te rh e p le d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f c o n s p ir a c yto p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te f i ve ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne w hi l e on boa r d ave s s e l s ubj e c tt o the j ur i s di c t i on of the U n i t e d St a t e s . A l v a r a d o ap p e a l s h i s s e n t e n c e o n U n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 2 U . S.

___ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , g r o u n d s , a r g u in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d w h e n it sen t en ced h i m u n d er a m an d at o ry g u i d el i n es sch em e b ased o n fact s n o tfo u n d b y a j ury or a dm i tt ed by hi m . W e AF F I RM . I . B AC KG RO UN D A c c or di ng t o the P r e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R e port( “ P S I ” ) , i n F e brua ryof 2004, s e ve r a l i ndi vi dua l s on 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 a nd na m e d “ D on I s a a c , ” de pa rt e d f r om C ol om bi a , S outh A m e r i c aw 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 ton pa tr ol s pott e d the D on I s a a c appr oxi m a t e l y432 naut i c a l m i l e s s outh of A cap u l co , M ex i co . B ased o n i n t el l i g en ce fro m o th er ag en t s, a U n i t ed S t at es C o ast G uard cutt er , “ M i dg et , ” i nt er ce pt ed and b oarded the D on Is aa c. In ac cordance w i th abi l a t e r a l a gr e e m e ntw i th the C ol om bi a n gove rnm e nt , l a w e nf or c e m e nt a ge nt s s e a r c he d the D on I s a a c a nd f ound 214 ba l e s of

c oc a i ne – w e i ghi ng at ot a l of 4 ,8 5 3 k ilo g r a m s –c o n c e a le d in ah id d e n c o m p a rtm e n t. B a s e d u p o n ac o o r d in a te foun d o n b oard the D on Is aa c, as w el l as com m un i ca t i on s overhear d o n sever al3

r a d io f r e q u e n c ie s , th e a g e n ts c o n c lu d e d th a t th e D o n I s a a c w a s o n its w a yto its d r o p - o f f p o in t. N e a rth e s u s p e c te d d r o p - o f f p o in t, ah e lic o p te rc r e w s p o tte d tw o " g o - f a s t" vess el s, ea ch w i th three cr ew m em bers and tra vel i ng ata hi gh ra t e of s peed. A ft er the vess el s w er e s t op ped, a boardi ng cr ew i dent i fi ed on e of the cr ew m em bers as R aul A nt on i o S anchez A l vara do . A l l of the cr ew m em bers of the go -f as t s w er e M exi can n at i on al s w ho had tra vel ed fr om M exi co t o m ee tthe D on Is aa c’ s c re w and rece i ve the bal es of cocai ne. A l vara do and al l of the other G o-F as tcr ew m e m be r s ha d c oc a i ne r e s i due on the i rs ki n orc l othi ng. A l va r a do w a s s ubs e que nt l y one of f ourt e e n m e n na m e d i n atw o- c ount i ndi c tm e ntr e turne d i n the M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i daon 25 F e brua ry2004. A lv a r a d o a n d th e o th e r s w e r e c h a r g e d w ith c o n s p ir a c yto p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to 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 on boa r d ave s s e l s ubj e c tt o the ju r is d ic tio n o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s , in v io la tio n o f 4 6 U .S .C . § § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( g ) , a n d ( j) a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( ii) ( c o u n t 1 ) , a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne w hi l e on boa r d ave s s e l s ubj e c tt o the j ur i s di c t i on of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 46 U . S . C . §§ 1903 ( a ) a nd ( g) , 18 U . S . C . § 2 , and 2 1 U . S . C . § 9 60 (b)( 1)(B )( i i ) ( coun t2). T h e i n d i ctm en tal so i nc l ude d af

or f e i tur e pr ovi s i on.4

A lv a r a d o a g r e e d to p le a d g u iltyto c o u n t o n e o f th e in d ic tm e n t, a n d in exchange, the go vernm entprom i se d t o m ov e f or the di sm i ss al of coun ttw o at s e nt e nc i ng. A l vara do ' s pl eaw as subsequent l y a cc ept ed, and h e w as adj ud ged g u ilty . T he P S I c a l c ul a t e d aba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

38, atw o- l e ve l de c r e a s e f or m e e t i ng the s a f

e ty va l ve pr ovi s i ons , atw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty , a nd aone - l e ve l r e duc t i on i n a nt i c i pa t i on of the gove rnm e ntf

i l i ng a s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e m ot i on, f orat ot a l of

f e ns e l e ve l of

33. A l vara do ' s c ri m i nal hi s t ory c a t e gory w a s I , a nd the P S I r e c om m e nde d as e nt e nc e be tw e e n 135 t o 168 m o n th o f im p r is o n m e n t. A lv a r a d o d id n o t o b je c t to a n yo f

th e P S I 's c a lc u la tio n s . A tse nt enci ng , A l vara do m ade use of an i nt erpret erand ackno w l edged that h e h a d p le d g u iltyto c o u n t o n e o f th e in d ic tm e n t. E ve n though A l va r a do ha d not obj ec t ed t o the P S I' s f

ai l ure t o rec om m end a m i no r- rol e r educt i on , the di stri ctcourt 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 nys uc h obj e c t i on, i n l i ghtof the qua nt i ty of

c oc a i ne i nvol ve d. W he n a s ke d i f he ha d a nyB l a ke l yv. W a s hi ngt on, 54 2 U . S . 29 6, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 (200 4), obj ec t i on s, A l vara do ’ s c ou nsel re pl i ed that h e h a d “ o n l y . . . o n e g u i d e l i n e p r o v i s i o n . . . wh i c h i s d ru g q u a n t i tywh i c h we s tip u la te d a t th e tim e o f th e p le a .” T o cl ar i fy , the courtno t ed thatA l vara do ’ s pl ea agre em entw as “ op en, ” and m ade s ure thi s m eanthe pres erved the ri gh tt o app ea l5

the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d. I d. a t7. T he c ourtthe n not e d tha t , t o hi s c r e di t , A l va r a do w a s th e o n lyo n e o n ag o - f a s t b o a t to “p le a d g u iltyan d a c k n o w le d g e h is r e s pons i bi l i ty . ” I d. A d m ittin g th a t h e h a d b e e n le s s th a n to ta llyf o rth c o m in g in s o m e w a y , a n d th u s , d id n o t d e s e rv e th e § 5 K 1 .1 m o tio n , A lv a r a d o s till s o u g h t to b e s e n te n c e d a t th e lo w e n d o f th e r a n g e , to w h ic h th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t o b je c t. T he courtfoun d thatthe l ow end w as approp ri at e and subsequent l y s ent ence d A l va r a do t o 135 m onths i n pr i s on a nd f i ve y e a r s of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . A l va r a do r a i s e d no obj e c t i ons t o the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON B e c au s e A lv a r a d o f

a ile d to r a is e ac o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e to h is s e n te n c e in the di s tr i c tc ourt , w e r e vi e w hi s c l a i m onl yf orpl a i n e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , c e rt . de ni e d, ___ U . S . ___, 125 S . C t. 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . U n d e rp la in e rr o rr e v ie w , [ a ]n ap p e lla te c o u rt m a y n o t c o rr e c t a n e rr o r[ th a t] th e d e f e n d a n t f a ile d to r a i s e i n the di s tr i c tc ourtunl e s s the r e i s : “ ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd ( 3) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . I f a ll th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t, a n ap p e lla te c o u rt m a y th e n e x e r c is e its d is c r e tio n to n o tic e af o r f e ite d e rr o r , b u t o n lyif ( 4) the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of the j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” I d . ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) . In B l akel y v. W as hi ng t on , 54 2 U . S . 29 6, 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 , 25 34 -38 (20 04 ), the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe i m po si t i on of a s ent enci ng enhancem entbase d6

u p o n f a c ts n e ith e ra d m itte d b y th e d e f e n d a n t n o rf

o u n d b yth e ju ry , u n d e rth e S ta te o f W a s h in g to n ’s m a n d a to ry g u id e lin e s s y s te m , v io la te d th e d e f e n d a n t’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to aju ry tr ia l. I n B o o k e r , th e S u p r e m e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t a s c o n s tru e d in B la k e lyap p lie s to th e F e d e r a l S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . Id. , 12 5 S . C t . at74 6. T o cure the S i xth A m endm entvi ol at i on , the S up re m e C ou rt exci se d the tw o p art s of the S ent enci ng R ef orm A ctthatre nd er ed the gu i del i nes s y s t e m m a nda t ory , a nd thus , unc ons t i tut i ona l – 18 U . S . C . § 3553( b) ( 1) ( m a ki ng the gui de l i ne s bi ndi ng on the di s tr i c tc ourt ) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 3742( e ) ( r e qui r i ng de no vo re vi ew of se nt ence s on app ea l ). Id. , 12 5 S . C t . at76 4. T he S up re m e C ou rt m a de c l e a r , how e ve r , tha t“ [ t ] he di s tr i c tc ourt s , w hi l e notbound t o appl ythe G ui del i nes, m ustconsul ttho se G ui del i nes and t ake them i nt o acc ou ntw hen s e nt e nc i ng. ” I d. , 125 S . C t . a t767. S i n ce B o o k er, w e h av e h el d th atth ere are tw o p o ssi b l e B o o k er erro rs. S t atut ory e rr or ar i se s f

rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i ca t i on of a m andat ory – ra ther than adv i sory– sent enci ng sc hem e, w hi l e c on st i tut i on al error ari se s onl y w here ju d g e - f o u n d f a c ts in c r e a s e ad e f

e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e u n d e rth a t m a n d a to rys c h e m e . S ee U n i t ed S t at es v . S h el t o n , 4 0 0 F . 3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 0 -3 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ); see al so R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1298 ( not i ng tha tade f e nda nt ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o a ju ry tr ia l is v io la te d “w h e r e u n d e ram a n d a to ryg u id e lin e s s y s te m as e n te n c e is7

i ncre as ed because of an enhancem entbase d o n fac t s f ou nd by the j ud ge thatw er e nei ther a dm i tt ed by the defendantno r f ou nd by the j ury. ”) . H e r e , the r e w a s s t a tut ory e rr orbe c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourti m pos e d a m andat ory s ent enci ng sc hem e. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d at13 30 . A l vara do , ho w ever , s tip u la te d to th e d ru g q u a n tityth a t d e te rm in e d h is s e n te n c e ; it w a s n o t a j udge - f ound f a c t . B e c aus e of

thi s , a nd be c aus e he w a s nots e nt e nc e d be y ond the appl i cabl e s t atut ory m axi m um of l i fe i m pri sonm ent , there w as no const i tut i on al B ooke re rr or . S e e S he l t on, 400 F . 3d a t1330 ( f i ndi ng no e rr orw he r e the de f e nda nt adm i tt ed drug qu ant i ty i n the pl eaagre em entand d i d n otobj ec tt o the fa ctual f i ndi ngs i n the P S I ) . N e ve rthe l e s s , the s t a tut orye rr ors a t i s f i e s the f i r s ttw o pr ongs o f th e p la in e rr o rte s t. N ext , A l vara do m ustdem on stra t e thatthe error vi ol at ed hi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at12 98 . R od ri gu ez anno un ce d a t es tfor s ub st ant i al r ig h ts v io la tio n s a n d s ta te d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t m u s t s h o w a“r e a s o n ab le prob abi l i ty” thathe w ou l d h ave r ec ei ved a l es se r s ent ence i f the gu i del i nes w er e ap p lie d in a n a d v is o ry f a s h io n . I d . a t 1 2 9 9 . H e r e , how e ve r , the di s tr i c tc ourte xpl i c i t l ynot e d tha ti tw oul d ha ve o v e rru le d a n y o b

je c tio n A lv a r a d o m a yh a v e m a d e to th e d e n ia l o f am in o r - r o le r e duc t i on. M or e ove r , e ve n though A l va r a do w a s s e nt e nc e d a tthe bott om of the8

ap p lic ab le r a n g e , th is a lo n e w ill n o t c r e a te ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ilityth a t h e w o u ld have rec ei ved a l es se r s ent ence un der an adv i soryse nt enci ng sc hem e. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. F i el ds, 40 8 F . 3d 13 56 , 13 60 -61 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). F i nal l y, the di stri ct c o u rt d id n o t a n n o u n c e a n y a lte rn a te s e n te n c e a n d m a d e n o in d ic a tio n th a t it w o u ld h av e sen t en ced A l v arad o d i fferen t l y u n d er d i fferen tci rcu m st an ces. T h u s, b ecau se A l va r a do c a nnots how tha thi s s e nt e nc e w oul d l i ke l yha ve be e n l e s s i f the gu i del i nes w er e notm andat ory, he cann otshow thathi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s w er e a f f e c t e d w h e n th e d i s tr i c tc o u rts e n t e n c e d h i m u n d e rama n d a t o rys y s t e m. T h e r e f o r e , h e c a n n o t s a tis f

y th e p la in e rr o rte s t. I I I . CONCL US I ON A l vara do appeal s hi s 135 -m on th sent ence and argues thatthe di stri ctcourt com m i tt ed a B oo ker e rr or w hen i tse nt ence d h i m un der am andat ory gui del i nes s c he m e ba s e d on f

a c t s notf ound by aj uryora dm i tt e d byhi m . A s w e ha ve e xpl a i ne d, A l va r a do c a nnots how tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc om m i tt e d pl a i n e rr or du ri ng se nt enci ng . A cc ordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM .