[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 10 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 01 00 -J SM- MAP-3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DAVID LOPEZ MENDEZ, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 17 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 01 00 -J SM- MAP-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 1 of 17VICTOR MANUEL BALLESTERO LINARES,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 17 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 01 00 -J SM- MAP-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us EDW IL DIEGO NAVAS CARCAM O, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 17 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 01 00 -J SM- MAP-5 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us

2 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 2 of 17EDGARDO EU DORO EVERETH OCAMPO,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 21 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Dav idLop ez M en de z ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d c on cu rren t 1 51 -m on th se nt en ces , Vict orBal le st ero Lin ares ap pe al s h is co nc urren t 1 88 -m on th sen te nc es , Edwi l Nav as Carc am o app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s an d c on cu rren t 1 51 -m on th se nt en ces , andEdg ard o Ev eret h Oca m po ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s, fo r (1 ) co ns pi racy to p os se ss with t he in te ntto di strib ut e 5 ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne whi le on bo arda ve ss el subjec t t o Un it edSta te s ju ris di ct io n wi th pe rs on s

“ kn own an d u nkno wn” an d s ta rti ng on an“un kn own da te ,” in vi ol at io n o f 46 U.S.C. §§ 70 50 3( a)(1 ), 70 50 6( a) an d (b ), an d 2 1 U.S.C. § 96 0( b) (1 )(B) (ii ) (“ Co un t 1” ); a nd(2) aid in g a ndab et ti ng po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 5 o r m or e ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne whi le on bo arda ve ss el subjec t t o Un it edSta te s ju ris di ct io n, in vi ol at io n o f 46 U.S.C. §§ 70 50 3( a)(1 ), 70 50 6( a), 1 8 U.S.C. § 2, an d 2 1 U.S.C. 3 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 3 of 17§ 9 60 (b )(1 )(B) (ii ) (“ Co un t 2 ”). All fou r de fen da nt s wer e tr ie d i n ajoi nttri al , and

th ey were h el d a cco un tabl e fo r 1,5 00 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne , whi ch was t he am ou nt se iz edfro m

th e v es se l.

I. Men de z an d C arca m o a rg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erreddu rin g v oi r di re i n fai li ng to askpro po se d que st io ns reg ard in g t he juro rs ’ op in io ns ab ou t the go ve rn m en t en ga gi ng inm ari ti m e se iz ur es , th e d efen dant s b ei ng Hon du ran , th e de fen da nt s n othavi ng th e b ur de n o f pr oo f, an d t he de fen da nt s h av in g t he rig htto rem ai n s il en t an d n ottes ti fy . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s co nduc t o f vo ir d ire forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d S ta te s v . Vera, 7 01 F.2d13 49 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). The co urt’s di sc ret io n i nc lu de s wh ethe r to subm ita pa rty’ s p ro po se d que st io ns to th e v en ire . Uni te d S ta te s v . Tegz es , 71 5 F .2d50 5, 5 07 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ).

“ The co ns ti tu ti on al st an da rdof f ai rn es s re qu ire s t ha t a d efen da ntha ve a pa ne l o f im

pa rti al , in di ffer en t juro rs .” Mu rp hy v. Flo rid a, 42 1 U.S. 7 94 , 79 9, 9 5 S. Ct . 20 31 , 20 36 (19 75 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . To th is effe ct , vo ir d ire pl ay s a cri ti cal fun ct io n b ecau se witho utad equa te vo ir d ire , th e tr ia l co urt wi ll be un ab le to effe ct iv el y

rem ov e juro rs who are u nabl e to actim pa rti al ly, an d t he de fen da nt 4 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 4 of 17wil l b e u nabl e to effe ct iv el y ch al le ng e juro rs . Ros al es -Lop ez v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 51 U.S. 18 2, 1 88 , 10 1 S . Ct. 1 62 9, 1 63 4 (1 98 1) .

“ The pu rp os e o f vo ir d ire is to en ab le th e d efen da ntto ev al ua te th e pr os pe ct iv e juro rs an d s el ecta fai r an d i m pa rti al jury. ” Vera, 7 01 F.2dat 1 35 5. Bec au se a “

juro r is po or ly pla cedto m ak e a d et erm in at io n a s t o h is own im pa rti al it y ,” itis up to th e tr ia l co urt t o m ak e th atde te rm in at io n. Un it edSta te s v . Hawki ns , 65 8 F .2d27 9, 2 85 (5th C ir. 1 98 1) (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . The p ro pe r in qu iry is “ whe th er the di st ric t ju dg e’s ov eral l ex am in at io n, co up le d wi th hi s ch arg e to th e jury, affor ds a pa rty the pro te ct io n s ou gh t.” Teg zes , 71 5 F .2dat 5 07 (quo ta ti onom it te d) . A dis tri ctco urt d oe s n otab us e it s d is cret io n u nl es s i t fa il s t o reas on ab ly ass ur e th atpre jud ic e wou ldbe di sc ov eredif p res en t. Id .; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Bru nty , 70 1 F .2d13 75 , 13 78 -7 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 3) (ho ld in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b ecau se itask edvo ir d ire qu es ti on s t ha t

“ ad equa te ly cov eredth os e m at te rs whi ch th e d efen da ntha d aleg it im at e in te res t i n br in gi ng ou t” ). Des pi te th e as se rti on s o f Men de z an d C arca m o, the di st ric t co urt d id qu es ti on th e juro rs reg ard in g t he de fen da nt s’ Hon du ranna ti on al it y an d t he fact th atth e d efen dant s d idno t h av e th e b ur de n t o p ro ve an yth in g a t tria l. Fu rth erm or e, wit h re ga rdto m ari ti m e se iz ur es , th e rec or d s ho ws tha t the co urt 5 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 5 of 17co m

pr eh en si ve ly que st io ne d t he pro sp ect iv e juro rs ab ou t p ot en ti al bi as , whi ch al lo wedMen de z an d C arca m o s uf fic ie ntin fo rm at io n upo n wh ic h t o b as e th ei r juro r ch al le ng es . In ad di ti on , th e co urt s pe ci fic al ly ins tru ct edth e jury at tr ia l tha t th e d efen da nt s h ada ri gh t n otto tes ti fy , andth atitco ul d n otco ns id er the ir c ho ic e to in vo ke th atrig htas e vi de nc e ag ai ns t the m . See Un it edSta te s v . Ram ire z, 42 6 F.3 d 1 34 4, 1 35 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (“ A jury is pre su m edto fol lo w th e in st ru ct io ns gi ve n t o i t b y

th e d is tri ctjud ge .”). Thu s, the co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n refu si ng to askth e p ro po se d v oi r di re que st io ns . II. Men de z, Lin ares , andCarc am o a ss ertth atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinfin di ng th atth ey were n oteli gi bl e fo r a reduc ti onun de r U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2(b ) ba se d o n th ei r m in orrol e in th e o ffen se on th e g ro un d t ha t ea ch crew m em be r ab oardth e ve ss el was e qu al ly cul pabl e. A di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f a d efen da nt ’s rol e in th e o ffen se is a factua l fi nd in g t o b e rev ie wedforcle ar err or . Uni te d S ta te s v . De Varo n, 1 75 F.3d 93 0, 9 37 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (en ba nc ). Whe n t he di stric t co urt’s d eci si on is supp orte d b y

th e rec or d andis no t a m is ap pl ic at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s, we ra rel y co nc lu de th atth e d et erm in at io n was cle arl y erro ne ou s. Id . at 9 45 . The p arty 6 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 6 of 17se ek in g t he m in or -ro le ad jus tm en t “ be ars th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g am it ig at in g ro le in th e o ffen se by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce.” Id . at 9 39 . If the de fen da ntwas a“ m in orpa rti ci pa nt ” in an y cri m in al act iv it y , hi s of fen se lev el is reduc edby two l ev el s. U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2(b ) (2 00 9) . A min or pa rti ci pa ntis on e “ who is les s cu lp ab le th anm os t o th er p art ic ip an ts , bu t wh os e ro le co ul d n otbe de sc rib edas m in im al .” Id . § 3 B1 .2, co m m en t. (n .5). Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r a m it ig at in g- ro le ad jus tm en t ap pl ie s, the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d c on si de r two pri nc ip le s: “ fir st , th e d efen da nt ’s rol e inth e rel ev an t co nduc t fo r whi ch[he ] ha s b eenhe ldacco un tabl e atsen te nc in g, an d, s eco nd , [hi s] ro le as c om

pa redto th atof o th er p art ic ip an ts in[hi s] rel ev an t co nduc t.” De Varo n, 1 75 F.3dat 9 40 . As to th e fi rs t p ro ng of t hi s an al y si s, the co urt m us t as se ss th e d efen dant ’s rol e in rel at io n t o a ll of t he rel ev an t co nduc t tha t was at tri bu te d t o h im

un de r § 1 B1 .3, as th e b ro adsco pe of t ha t s ect io n m ay cau se so m e de fen da nt s t o b e h el d a cco un tabl e fo r co nduc t tha t i s m uc h b ro ad er tha n t he ir sp eci fic act s. Id . at 9 40 -4 1. “ Onl y if t he de fen da ntcanest ab li sh th at[he ] pl ay eda rel at iv el y m in orrol e in th e co nduc t fo r whi ch[he ] ha s al read y be enhe ld acco un tabl e—n ota m in or rol e in an y

lar ge r cri min al co ns pi racy—sh ou ldth e di st ric t co urt g ran t a d own wardad jus tm en t fo r m in orrol e in th e o ffen se .” Id . at 94 4. 7

Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 7 of 17Und er U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .3, a d efen da nt ’s rel ev an t co nduc t i nc lu de s “ al l

reas on ab ly fores eeab le act s an d o m is si on s o f ot he rs infurth eran ce o f th e joi nt ly un de rta ke n c riminal act iv it y .” U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .3(a )(1 )(B) (20 09 ). Becaus e th is is a b ro adde fin it io n, we h av e n ot edth ata de fen da ntcanbe he ldacco un tabl e fo r co nduc t tha t i s b ro ad er tha n h is sp eci fic act s. De Varo n, 1 75 F.3dat 9 41 . W e no te d t ha t a c on sp ira cy

is su ch anex am

pl e b ecau se th e d efen da nt ’s rel ev an t co nduc t ca n i nc lu de th e en ti re co ns pi racy even th ou gh hi s ro le inth e co ns pi racy was min or . Id. Ho wev er, the de fen da ntm us t s ho w th athi s ro le was m in or , andhe can no t m ak e th is sh owi ng when hi s co nduc t was m or e se rio us th ansu gg es te d b y hi s b as e-o ffen se lev el , or wh enth e rel ev an t co nduc t at tri bu te d t o h im is id en ti cal to hi s ac tu al co nduc t. Id . Inth e dru g c ou rie r co nt ex t, the am ou ntof d ru gs is rel ev an t an d m ay in di cat e th e ex te ntof t he de fen dant ’s parti ci pa ti on inth e cri m in al en te rp ris e. Id . at 9 43 . In ad di ti on , we hav e h el d t ha t, wh ena de fen da ntis he ldacco un tabl e o nl y forth e drug s h e ad m it te d t o c on sp iri ng to tra ns po rt, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n refu si ng to gra nta m in or -ro le reduc ti on . Uni te d S ta te s v . Alv arez -Co ria , 44 7 F .3d 13 40 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). On the ot he r ha nd , a di st ric t co urt i s n ot pr ecl ud edfro m

gra nt in g am in or -ro le ad

jus tm en t wh enth e d efen da ntis he ld acco un tabl e o nl y

forth e dru gs he pe rs on al ly tran sp orte d. U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2, 8 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 8 of 17co m

m en t. (n .3(A) ) (2 00 9) . Und er the sec on d p ro ng of the an al y si s, the co urt s ho ul d c om pare the de fen da ntto th e o th er p art ic ip an ts on ly to the ex te ntth atth e o th ers (1) “ are id en ti fiabl e o r di sc ern ab le fro m th e ev id en ce,” a nd(2) “ were i nv ol ve d i n t he rel ev an t co nduc t at tri bu te d t o t he de fen da nt .” De Varo n, 1 75 F.3dat 9 44 . The de fen da ntm

us t s ho w th athe “ was les s cu lp ab le th anm os t o th er p art ic ip an ts in [h is ] rel ev an t co nduc t” inord er t o re cei ve a m in or -ro le reduc ti on . Id. (quo ta ti on om it te d) (em

ph as is inori gi na l). W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n re fu si ng to gra ntth e m in or -ro le reduc ti on . The d efen da nt s wer e n othe ldacco un tabl e fo r a l arg er am ou ntof c oc ai ne th anth ey pe rs on al ly tran sp orte d. Se e Alv arez -Co ria , 44 7 F .3d at13 43 ; De Var on , 17 5 F .3dat 9 41 . Furt he rm or e, no ne of t he de fen da nt s de m on st rat ed , by a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, tha t h e p lay eda m it ig at in g ro le in th e o ffen se an d was les s cu lp ab le th anm os t o th er p art ic ip an ts inth e rel ev an t co nduc t at tri bu te d t o h im . See De Varo n, 1 75 F.3dat 9 39 , 94 4. Un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces , we do no t fi ndcle ar erro r in th e co urt’s re fu sa l t o g ran t a m in or ro le reduc ti on .

9

Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 9 of 17III.

Men de z, Lin ares , andCarc am o a ss ertth atth e co urt erredinrefu si ng to ap pl y th e sa fety

va lv e in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( f) b as edon th ei r co nv ic ti on s u nd er Tit le 46 an d the ir s en te nc in g u nd er 2 1 U.S.C. § 96 0( b) .

“ W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e rel ev an t s en te nc in g st atut es an d S en te nc in g Gu id el in es de no vo .” Uni te d S ta te s v . And ers on , 20 0 F .3d 13 44 , 13 47 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (p er cu ria m). W e rec en tl y he ldth atth e sa fety -v al ve pr ov is io n d oe s n otap pl y

to Tit le 46 off

en se s. Un it edSta te s v . Pertuz -Pertu z, 67 9 F.3 d 1 32 7, 9 89 , 13 28 -2 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2) (pe r cu ria m). In P ertuz -Pertu z, th e de fen da ntha d b eenco nv ic te d o f (1 ) co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te fiv e o r m or e k il og ram s o f co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 46 U.S.C. §§ 70 50 3( a)(1 ), 70 50 6( a) & (b ), an d p en al iz edpurs ua ntto 21 U.S.C. § 9 60 (b )(1 )(B) (ii ); a nd(2) ai di ng an d abe tt in g t he po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te fiv e o r m or e k il og ram s of co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 46 U.S.C. §§ 70 50 3( a)(1 ), 70 50 6( a), 1 8 U.S.C. § 2, an d pe na li zedpu rs uantto § 9 60 (b )(1 )(B) (ii ). Id. at13 28 . W e h el d tha t, b ecau se § 70 50 3 i s n otin cl ud edinth e fi ve sp eci fie d o ffen se s u nd er § 35 53 (f), the saf ety va lv e d oe s n otap pl y

to de fen da nt s co nv ic te d u nd er tha t s ta tu te . Id. We rejecte d th e d efen da nt ’s arg um en t tha t the refe ren ce i n Ti tl e 4 6 t o § 96 0 m ak es th e o ffen se anenum erat edoff

en se un de r § 3 55 3( f); in st ead , we con cl ud edth atth e 10 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 10 of 17sa fety -v al ve pro vi si on refe rs to an“ of fen se un de r” § 96 0—no t t o a n “ of fen se pe na li zedun de r” § 96 0. Id . at 1 32 8- 29 . Men de z, Lin ares , andCarc am o wer e co nv ic te d o f th e sa m e cri m es an d un de r th e sa m e p ro vi si on s as th e d efen da ntinPertuz -Pertu z. Becaus e th e sa fety va lv e d oe s n otap pl y

to co nv ic ti on s u nd er Tit le 46 , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g t he ir r eque stto be sen te nc edinacco rd an ce wi th § 3 55 3( f).

IV. Men de z an d C arca m o a rg ue th atth ei r se nt en ces are p ro cedur al ly and subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le ba se d o n am is cal cu la ti onof t he Gui de li ne s, an all eg ed fai lu re t o c on si de r th e fac to rs in18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a), an d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s with o th er d efen da nt s i n u nr el at edcas es . Lina res sep arat el y ass ert s t ha t h is se nt en ces are p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le ba se d o n am is cal cu la ti onof t he Gui de li ne s an d t he di st ric t co urt’s al le ge d fa il ur e to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce i m po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo r rea so nabl en es s. Uni te d S ta te s v . W in in ge ar, 4 22 F.3d12 41 , 12 44 -4 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (pe r cu ria m). Fu rth erm or e, we rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e u nd er a d efer en ti al ab us e of di sc ret io n s ta nd ardof r ev ie w. Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 41 , 12 8 S . Ct. 58 6, 5 91 (20 07 ). The p arty ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g

11 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 11 of 17th e se nt en ce i s unr eas on ab le . Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir .

20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). Altho ug h we d o n otau to m at ic al ly pres um e rea so nabl en es s fo r a s en te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in es ran ge , we ord in ari ly exp ectsu ch a se nt en ce t o be reas on ab le . Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun t, 5 26 F.3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Inde te rm in in g re as on ab le ne ss , we “ ev al ua te whet he r th e se nt en ce i m po se d by the di st ric t co urt fa il s t o a ch ie ve th e p ur po se s o f se nt en ci ng as s ta te d i n s ect io n 35 53 (a).” Tall ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 . In m ak in g thi s d et erm in at io n, we co nduc t a two -s te p re vi ew, fir sten su rin g t ha t the sen te nc e was pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, an d th enex am in in g wh ethe r th e se nt en ce was subs tant iv el y reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Gal l, 5 52 U.S. at 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct . at 5 97 . To b e p ro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e p ro pe rly cal cu la te d t he gu id el in e ran ge , tre at edth e Gui de li ne s as advi so ry , con si de redth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, n otco ns id eredcle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, an d a de qu at el y ex pl ai ne d th e ch os ensen te nc e. Gall , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 7. Th e d is tri ctco urt’s ackno wled gm en t tha t i t h as co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d t he pa rti es ’ arg um en ts is su ffi ci en t, an d t he co urt d oe s n otne ed“ to st at e o n t he reco rdth atit ha s ex pl ic it ly con si de redeach of t he sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or s o r to di sc us s ea ch of th e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s.” Tal le y , 43 1 F .3dat 7 86 (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . 12 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 12 of 17As d is cu ss edab ov e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t m is cal cu la te th e g ui de li ne

ran ge by fail in g t o g ran t a m in or -ro le reduc ti onor b y fai li ng to ap pl y

th e sa fety va lv e. Furth erm or e, th e co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s dur in g se nt en ci ng an d s ta te d t ha t i t fo un d t he sen te nc es su ffi ci en t t o s at is fy th os e fac to rs . The refo re, we co nc lu de th atth e se nt en ces of Li na res , Carca m o, an d M en de z were al l p ro cedur al ly reaso nabl e. As Lin ares do es no t ch al le ng e th e subs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of h is sen te nc e, we co nc lu de th athi s s en te nc e was reas on ab le . W it h re ga rdto subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s, “ [t]he di stric t co urt h as wid e di sc ret io n t o d eci de whet he r th e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s ju st ify a vari an ce.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Rod rig ue z, 62 8 F .3d12 58 , 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), cert . den ie d, 13 1 S . Ct. 2 16 6 (2 01 1) . “ W e d o n otrewei gh rel ev an t fa ct or s n or do we rem an d fo r re-s en te nc in g u nl es s t he di st ric t co urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng at asen te nc e o ut si de th e ran ge of reas on ab le sen te nc es .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lang st on , 59 0 F .3d12 26 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Whe n i m

po si ng a se nt en ce, the di st ric t co urt m us t “ av oi d u nwa rran te d se nt en ce d is pa rit ie s among de fen da nt s wi th si m il ar re co rd s wh o h av e b een fou nd gu il ty of si mil ar co nduc t.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 6) . Howev er, u nwa rran te d se nt en ci ng di sp ari ti es do no t o ccur be twee n d efen da nt s t ha t ar e n otsi m il arl y si tu at ed . Uni te d S ta te s v . Spo erk e, 56 8 F .3d12 36 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). 13 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 13 of 17Men de z an d C arca m o fa il edto sh ow t ha t the ir s en te nc es were s ub st an ti ve ly

un reas on ab le , as t he y

di d n otsh ow t ha t the re were sen te nc e d is pa rit ie s wi th an y si mil arl y si tu at edde fen da nt s. Furth erm or e, we no te th atCarc am o re cei ve d t he 1 15 1- m on th sen te nc e th athe ex pr es sl y reque st eddu rin g t he sen te nc in g h eari ng , and th us , un de r th e d oc tri ne of i nv it ederro r, he “ m ay no t ch al le ng e as erro r a ru li ng or ot he r tr ia l p ro ceed in g [t ha t h e] inv it ed .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lov e, 44 9 F .3d11 54 , 11 57 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m) (quo ta ti on om it te d) ; s ee Un it edSta te s v . Bran na n, 5 62 F.3d13 00 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (“ The do ctrin e st em s fr om th e co m m on sen se vi ew th atwher e a p arty in vi te s t he tri al co urt t o c omm iterro r, he can no t l at er cry

fou l o n app eal .”). Acco rd in gl y , Men de z, Carc am o, an d Li na res Carca mo and Mende z raise their de portation argument for the f irst time on appeal. 1 We reviewany

arg uments not raised at the district court only for plain e rror . United States v. Be nnett, 472 F.3d 825, 831 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). This standard r equire s the defe ndant to show “(1) an er

ror; (2) that is plain; (3) that aff ects substantial rights; and (4) that seriously aff ects the f airne ss, integrity , or public re putation of judicial proce eding s.” United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324, 1326 ( 11th Cir. 2010). Wi th reg ard to plain e rror , when the la nguag e of the statute or

rule doe s not resolve the issue, “ there can beno plain err or whe re the re is no prec edent f

rom the Supreme Court or this Court di rec tly

resolvingit.” United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1322 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). In an opinion issued prior to United States v. B ooker, 543 U .S. 220, 125 S. C t. 738 (2005), we held that a c ourt could not apply a downwa

rd depa rture to shield a

defe ndant from collater al conse quence s based on the de fenda nt’s deportation status. United St ates v. Maung , 320 F.3d 1305, 1308- 10 (11th Cir. 2003). In a post-B ooker c ase, w e cited our prior holdingin Maung , but declined to dete rmine whe ther it was still binding pre cede nt after Booke r. United States v. Saac, 632 F .3d 1203, 1215 & n.6 ( 11th Cir. 2011), cer t. denied, 132 S. Ct. 139 (2011). Be cause there is no prece dent from the Supre me Court or this Court requiringa district cour t to consider the se collate ral c onsequenc es, there was no plain e rror . 14 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 14 of 17ha ve fai le d t o s ho w th atth ei r se nt en ces are p ro cedur al ly or subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . V. Ocam po arg ue s s ep arat el y

th athi s ri gh ts un de r th e Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e were v io la te d b as edon a Fed eral Bu reauof I nv es ti ga ti on (“ FBI” ) ag en t’s te st im on y at t ria l tha t Oca m

po ga ve a st at em en t re gard in g h is pa rti ci pa ti on inth e co ns pi racy tha t was ess en ti al ly the same as Car cam o’s s ta te m en t. Ocam po ass ert s th atth e ag en t’s t es ti m on y reg ard in g t he si m il ari ty of th e two st at em en ts vi ol at ed hi s ri gh ts un de r Bru to n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 91 U.S. 12 3, 8 8 S . Ct. 1 62 0 (1 96 8) . W e rev ie w pre se rv edBru to n c la im s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n a ndev al ua te an y Bru to n e rro r fo r ha rm le ss ne ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t, m ean in g t ha t we “ as k whe th er the pro pe rly adm it te d e vi de nc e o f gu il t was so ov erwh el m in g, an d the pr ejud ic ia l ef

fectof t he co -d efen da nt ’s st at em en t s o i ns ig ni fic an t, tha t b ey on d a ny reas on ab le do ub t the im

pr op er u se of the st at em en t was ha rm le ss .” Uni te d S ta te s v. Tu rn er, 4 74 F.3d12 65 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti on an d a lt erat io n om it te d) . The Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e o f th e Si xt h Am en dm en t p ro vi de s a d efen da ntin a cri m in al tri al th e ri gh t “ to be co nf ro nt edwith t he witne ss es ag ai ns t h im .” an d t o 15 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 15 of 17cro ss -ex am in e th em . U.S. Con st . am en d. VI; see Bru to n, 3 91 U.S. at 1 26 ; 8 8 S .

Ct . at 1 62 3. In Bru to n, the Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t, i n ajoi nttri al , th e Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e was vi ol at edby the admis si on of “po werfu ll y in cri min at in g ex tra jud ic ia l s ta te m en ts ” o f a n on -te st ifyin g c od efen da nt , des pi te a cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n g iv ento th e jury. 39 1 U.S. at13 5- 36 , 88 S. Ct. at16 28 . In o th er wor ds , “ a d efen da nt ’s con fro nt at io n ri gh t i s v io la te d wh enth e co urt ad m it s a co de fen dantst at em en t tha t, i n l ig htof the Gov ern m en t’s wh ol e cas e, co m pe ls a reas on ab le pe rs on to in fer t he de fen dant ’s gu il t.” Un it edSta te s v . Sch wart z, 54 1 F.3 d 1 33 1, 1 35 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Howev er, o nl y th os e st at em en ts by a no n- te st ifyin g c od efen da ntth atdi rect ly inc ul pa te th e d efen dantgi ve ris e to a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Un it edSta te s v . Arias , 98 4 F .2d11 39 , 11 42 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). “ [A]dm is si on of aco de fen dant ’s st at em en t i s n oterro r un de r Bru to n wh ere th e st at em en t was no t i nc riminat in g o n i ts face , andbe cam e so on ly whe n l in ke d with e vi de nc e in tro du cedlat er attri al .” Id . (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . The ag en t’s ch al le ng edtes ti m on y was n otanex tra

jud ic ia l s ta te m en t tha t was subjec t t o B ru to n, as itwas ast at em en t m ad e b y a swo rnwitne ss who was subjec t t o c ro ss -ex am in at io n. Ho wev er, ev enass um in g t ha t the ch al le ng ed te st im on y di d qua li fy

as a n e xt raju di ci al st at em en t, Ocam po ha s n otsh own th at Carc am o’s s ta te m en t d ire ct ly inc ul pa te d Oca m po inth e co ns pi racy. At n o t im e 16 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 16 of 17di d t he ag en t t es ti fy th atCarc am o m en ti on edOcam po no r th atCarc am o s ta te d t ha t Ocam po kn ew th e dru gs were co cai ne . Furt he rm or e, th e ag en t cl ari fie d b ot h du rin g d ire ctex am in at io n a nddu rin g Oca m po ’s cro ss -ex am in at io n t ha t Oca m po ’s st at em en t co nt ai ne d the word“ drug s” an d n ot“ co cai ne .” Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we co nc lu de th atth e ag en t’s t es ti m on y th atCarc am o a ndOcam

po ’s st at em en ts were s im il ar d idno t v io la te Bru to n. 2

VI. Fi na ll y , we no te th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s wri tt enjud gm en ts each co nt ai n sc riv en er’s err or s ab ou t the st atut es un de r whi chth e d efen da nt s wer e co nv ic te d, in di cat in g tha t ea ch de fen da ntwas c on vi ct edinCo un t 1 un de r Tit le 42 , rathe r th an un de r Tit le 46 . There fo re, a re m an d i s n eces sary forth e li mit edpu rp os e o f co rrec ti ng th e wri tt enjud gm en ts to so refl ect . W e rem an d t o t he co urt fo r th e li mit edpurp os e o f co rrec ti ng th os e err or s i n t he jud gm en ts . Upo n ath or ou gh rev ie w of t he en ti re re co rdon ap pe al , andaft er co ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm th e co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es . AFFIRMED , and REMANDED with i ns tru ct io ns . Even if the a dmission of the ag ent’s testimony had violated B ruton, any err or 2 would be har

mless in light of the ove rwhe lming evide nce at trial that Oca mpo was par

t of the conspirac y

and knew

the drug s were coca ine. 17 Case: 10-15101 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 17 of 17