FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUG 24, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 20 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cr-1 40 07 -KMM -1 0

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 ANDERSON BRUTUS, f.k.a . Bru tu s An de rs on , 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 fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st24 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:And ers on Bru tu s ap pe al s h is 10 8- m on th sen te nc e, th e m in im um sen te nc e su gg es te d u nd er the ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge , im po se d a fte r he pl edgu il ty to on e co un t o f co ns pi racy with in te ntto di st rib ut e fi ve ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . On ap pe al , Bru tu s as se rts (1) th e d is tri ctco urt erre d b y de nyin g h is reque stfora m it ig at in g ro le reduc ti on an d (2 ) hi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . After r ev ie w, we affi rm Bru tu s’s s en te nc e. 1 I. Bru tu s fi rs t ar gu es a m it ig at in g ro le reduc ti onwas app ro pr ia te inli gh t o f th e fact s b efo re the di st ric t co urt. Bru tu s co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto co m pa re hi s ro le with t he rel ev an t co nduc t at tri bu te d t o h im an d d idno t m eas ur e h is co nduc t ag ai ns t tha t o f th e o th er m em be rs of t he co ns pi racy. To d et erm in e whe th er a p art ic ul ar d efen da ntqu al ifi es fora § 3 B1 .2 m it ig at in g ro le reduc ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt m us t fi rs t “ m eas ur e th e d efen dant ’s ro le ag ai ns t the rel ev an t co nduc t fo r whi ch[]he h as be enhe ldacco un tabl e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z De Va ro n , 17 5 F .3d93 0, 9 40 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) ( en ba nc ). The d is tri ctco urt m ay als o m eas ur e th e d efen da nt ’s rol e ag ai ns t the rol es “[A] di strict court’s de termination of a de fenda nt’s role in the off

ense is a f inding of 1 fac t to be revie wed only

for c lear err or.” United States v. Rodriguez DeVaron , 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) ( en banc ). We revie w the substantive re asonable ness of a sentenc e under

a defe rential a

buse-of -discre tion standard. United States v. Ire y , 612 F.3d 1160, 1188 ( 11th Cir. 2010) ( en banc ), cert. de nied, 131 S. Ct . 1813 (2011). 2of

th e o th er p art ic ip an ts inth e rel ev an t co nduc t. Id . at 9 44 . In an y cas e, so lo ng as th e rec or d s up po rts th e d eci si on of t he co urt an d a ny dis pu te d fa ctua l i ss ue s ar e res ol ve d, “ a d is tri ctco urt i s n otrequi redto m ak e an y sp eci fic fin di ng s o th er tha n th e u lt im at e d et erm in at io n o f th e d efen da nt ’s rol e in th e o ffen se .” Id. at 9 40 . The di stric t co urt d idno t co m m itcle ar erro r in de nyin g B ru tu s a m it ig at in g ro le reduc ti on . The rel ev an t co nduc t ag ai ns t wh ic h h is rol e was ass es se d was pr op erl y co ns id eredas t he 13 0 k il og ram s o f co cai ne with wh ic h B ru tu s was pe rs on al ly inv ol ve d, n otth e m uc h l arg er am ou ntin vo lv edinth e co ns pi racy as a who le . Bru tu s fa il edto sh ow h e was les s cu lp ab le th anth e av erag e p art ic ip an t be cau se he “ act iv el y

pa rti ci pa te d i n asch em e o ve r a p eri odof t im e [an d] was aware he was t ran sp orti ng lar ge am ou nt s o f co cai ne . . . an d o bt ai ne d k il og ram am ou nt s o f co cai ne . . . fo r hi s o wn b en efi t.” II. Bru tu s ar gu es hi s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co urt fa il edto co ns id er the rel ev an t fa ct or s. Bru tu s al so co nt en ds th e fac t th atPars on Exan a–who he lp edco or di na te th e im po rta ti on of t he co cai ne –r ecei ve d th e sa m e se nt en ce d em on st rat es th athi s s en te nc e was gre at er tha n n eces sa ry to co m pl y with t he st atut ory

pu rp os es of 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a).

3The di stric t co urt p ro pe rly con si de redth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d fo un d t ha t a

se nt en ce atth e b ot to m

of the Gui de li ne s ra ng e wou ldbe su ffi ci en t t o d et er Brutus . The di st ric t co urt’s fo cu s o n o ne pa rti cu lar § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or do es no t co ns ti tu te an ab us e o f di sc ret io n, s o l on g a s s uc h afoc us was n otto th e ex cl us io n o f th e o th er st atut ory fact or s, wh ic h i t was no t h ere. Se e Gal l v. Uni te d Sta tes , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 60 0- 02 (20 07 ). Mo reo ve r, Bru tu s’s co nt en ti onth athi s s en te nc e was un reas on ab le be cau se itwas t he same as th atgi ve n t o Ex an a–who was i nv ol ve d i n t he im po rta ti on of t he co cai ne –i s wi th ou t m eri t. As t he Gov ern m en t p oi nt edou t at se nt en ci ng , witho utob

jecti on , th ere i s re as on to do ub t tha t Brutus an d Ex an a were si mil arl y si tu at ed , as n o e vi de nc e was be fo re the co urt s ug ge st in g t ha t Ex an a h ad be enfro nt edki lo gr am

am ou nt s o f co cai ne forhi s o wn u se . W e co nc lu de Bru tu s’s se nt en ce was subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

4