### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 14, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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- 13075 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 0 7 4 - CR - DLG 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 O R L A N D O M U R C I A - P E R L A Z A , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 14, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O r l a ndo M ur c i a - P e r l a z aappe a l s hi s 87- m onth s e nt e nc e f ori m por t a t i on of2

h e r o in , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 9 5 2 ( a ) . O n ap p e a l, h e a r g u e s : ( 1 ) th a t h is s e nt e nc e i s unc ons t i tut i ona l pur s ua ntt o B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . __, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2004) , a nd U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , __ U . S . __, 125 S . C t . 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 1 (2 0 0 5 ); an d (2 ) th at , b ecau se h i s ro l e i n th e o ffen se w a s o n ly to s e rv e a s a d ru g c o u r ie r , a n d th e r e w e r e o th e r , m o r e c u lp ab le part i ci pant s i n the drug i m po rt at i on sc hem e, the di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave a dj ust ed h is b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l d o w n w a r d tw o le v e ls , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 . W e a ddr e s s e a c h a r gum e nti n turn. 1. B ook e r E r r or B e c a us e M ur c i a - P e r l a z ar a i s e s hi s B l a ke l y / B ooke rc l a i m f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , w e r e vi e w i tf

orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1297- 98 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A n appe l l a t e c our tm a y notc orr e c ta n e rr orr a i s e d f or the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l un l es s there i s: “ (1) e rr or, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) that a f f e c t s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ott on, 535 U . S . 625, 631 ( 2002) (q u o t at i o n s an di n t ern al m ark s o m i tt ed ); R o d ri g u ez, 3 9 8 F . 3 d at1 2 9 8 . If th ese thr e e c ondi t i ons a r e m e t , w e ha ve di s c r e t i on t o c orr e c tthe e rr or , s o l ong a s “ ( 4) the error s er i ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” C ot t on , 53 5 U . S . at63 1 (qu ot at i on s a nd i nt ernal m arks om i tt ed); R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1298.3

a. C on s t i t u t i on alE r r or In thi s c as e there w as no const i tut i on al B oo ker e rr or. P ursuantt o B oo ker,

“ [a ] ny fa ct(other than a pri or conv i ct i on ) w hi ch i s nec es sa ryt o sup po rta s ent ence exce edi ng the m axi m um autho ri ze d b y the fa ct s e st abl i shed by a pl eaof gu i l ty or a j ury ve r di c tm us tbe a dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntorpr ove d t o aj ury be y ond a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t.” B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 5 6 . M u r c ia - P e r la z aa d m itte d to i m por t i ng 4, 715 gr a m s of a m i xtur e a nd s ubs t a nc e c ont a i ni ng ade t e c t abl e a m ount of he r oi n a thi s c ha nge of pl e ahe a r i ng — the f

a c ts uppor t i ng hi s s e nt e nc e tha the alleg es g iv es rise to th e B o o k erv io lati o n — w h en h e a g re ed th at th e g o v er n m en t’ s s ta te m e n t o f

th e f a c tu a l b a s is f

o rits c h a r g e s “a c c u r a te ly d e s c r ib e s w h a t [ h e ] d id in thi s c a s e [ . ] ” B e c a us e M ur c i a - P e r l a z aa dm i tt e d thi s f a c t , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not com m i tconst i tut i on al B oo ker e rr or. b . N on - C on s t i t u t i on al( S t at u t or y ) E r r or H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtdi d errby se nt enci ng M urci a- P er l az a und era m a nda t ory , r a the rtha n a dvi s ory , s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s s c he m e , e ve n i n the abs e nc e of

a c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 13 30 -31 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). M oreover, such error i s pl ai n, even tho ug h the di stri ct c our ts e nt e nc e d M ur c i a - P e r l a z abe f or e B ooke rw a s de c i de d. I d. a t1331. U n d e rR o d r ig u e z , to s a tis f y th e th ir d - p r o n g o f

th e p la in - e rr o rte s t, a4

de f e nda ntbe a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng a“ r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty of a di f f e r e nt r e s ul ti f the gui de l i ne s ha d be e n appl i e d i n a n a dvi s ory i ns t e a d of bi ndi ng f

a s hi on b y th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e in th is c a s e .” 3 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 1 . A “r e a s o n ab le pr obabi l i ty ” of

a di f f e r e ntr e s ul ti s a pr obabi l i ty “ s uf f i c i e ntt o unde rm i ne confi dence i n the ou t com e” of the proceedi ng . Id. at12 99 (quo t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. D om i ngue z B e ni t e z , 542 U . S . 74, __, 124 S . C t . 2333, 2340, 159 L . E d. 2d 157 (200 4)). T he on l y e vi dence thatthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave i m po se d a l ow er sen t en ce u n d er an ad v i so ry g u i d el i n es sch em e i s th ati ti m p o sed th e l o w est s e n te n c e p o s s ib le w ith in th e ap p lic ab le g u id e lin e s r a n g e , w h ic h is in s u f f ic ie n t to es t abl i sh the re qu i si t e “ re as on abl e probabi l i ty of adi ff er entre sul t ” und er R odr i gue z . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F i e l ds , __ F . 3d __, N o. 04- 12486, 2005 U . S . A pp. L E X I S 8637, *9- 12 ( 11th C i r . M a y 16, 2005) . T he r e f or e , M ur c i a - P e r l a z ac a nnot d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d p la in e rr o rw h e n it s e n te n c e d h im un der am andat ory gui del i nes s chem e. 2 . M in o r - R o le D o w n w a r d A d j u s t m e n t u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 M u r c ia - P e r la z an e x t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld h a v e a d ju s te d h is b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l d o w n w a r d tw o le v e ls , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 . H e a s s e r ts tha t , be c a us e he ha d no r ol e i n pl a nni ng the c r i m i na l s c he m e ordi s tr i but i ng the d ru g s , h e w a s le s s c u lp ab le th a n o th e r s , w h o a c te d a s “p a r tn e r s ,” w h ile h e m e r e ly5

se rved as a “ cog i n the m ac hi ne. ” H e a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourti gn ored the fa ct tha the w a s a c our i e r , w hi l e othe r s w e r e i nvol ve d i n r e c rui t i ng, i ns truc t i ng, s upe rvi s i ng, a nd gui di ng c our i e r s . H e c ont e nds tha t , i ns t e a d of f oc us i ng on the t ot a l i ty of

the c i r c um s t a nc e s , the di s tr i c tc our tove r e m pha s i z e d the a m ountof drugs im p o r te d . T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n o f a d efen d an t ’ s ro l e i n th e o ffen se i s a f i ndi ng of f a c ttha tw e r e vi e w f

orc l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d 93 0, 93 7 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc). A m i no r- rol e dow nw ar d adj ustm entun der § 3 B 1 .2 is ap p r o p r ia te o n ly in c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h e r e th e d e f e n d a n t p la y s a p a r t in c om m i tt i ng the of

f e ns e tha tm a ke s hi m s ubs t a nt i a l l y l e s s c ul pabl e tha n the a ve r a ge pa r t i c i pa nt . U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2, c m t . n. 3( A ) . I ti s the de f e nda nt ’ s bur de n t o s how b y ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e th a t h e p la y e d o n ly a m in o rr o le in th e o f f e n s e . D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t934. I n de t e rm i ni ng ade f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n the of

f e ns e , the di stri ctcourtfi rs tm ustm ea sure the defendant ’ s r ol e a gai nstthe re l evantcond uct for w hi ch she w as hel d acc ou nt abl e a tse nt enci ng . Id. S ec on d, “ the di stri ctcourt m a y a l s o m e a s ur e the de f e nda nt ’ s c onduc ta ga i ns ttha tof othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s i n the c r i m i na l s c he m e a ttr i but e d t o the de f e nda nt . ” I d. T he di stri ctcourt ’ s f

i nd i ng thatM urci a- P er l az a had a key duty i n the cr i m e, a nd tha thi s pa r t i c i pa t i on w a s m or e tha n m i nor , i s s uppor t e d by the r e c or d, a nd the6

di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rrby decl i ni ng t o app l y am i no r- rol e dow nw ar d a d ju s tm e n t. B as ed on the foregoi ng , w e a ff i rm M urci a- P er l az a’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.