FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 29, 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J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 12 19 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D.C. Dock et No. 4 :0 8- cr-0 00 29 -SPM -WCS-2

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

CUSTODIO GUERRA,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 ur t for th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 29 , 20 11 )

Befo re EDMONDSON, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Cu st od io Gue rra a p p e a ls hi s 23 5- m on th to ta l se nt en ce fo r co ns pi racy todi st rib ut e an d to po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m or e th an 50 gr am s of act ua l

m et ha m ph e t a mi n e an d m or e th an 50 0 gr am s of a m ix tu re co nt ai ni ng

m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A)(v ii i), an d 84 6;

an d di st rib ut io n of m or e t h an 50 gr am s of act ua l m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of

21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d ( b ) ( 1) (A)(v ii i). Gue rra arg ue s th at :(1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t

cl earl y erre d by ap pl y in g a two -le ve l ag gr av at in g- ro le en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to

U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (c) ba se d on th e un rel ia bl e he ars ay te st im on y of Sp e ci al Age nt

K e v in W hi tt le at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng ; (2 ) th e co ur t cl earl y erre d by h o l d i n g h i m

res po n s i b l e fo r at le as t 1.5 ki lo gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e ba se d on W hi tt le ’s

se nt en ci ng te st i mo n y; an d (3 ) hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Afte r

th or ou gh rev ie w, we affi rm

.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at a de fen da nt is su bj e c t t o a

Sect io n 3B 1.1 ro le en ha nc em en t as an or ga ni zer or le ad er fo r cl ear erro r.” Uni te d

St at es v. Mar ti ne z, 58 4 F.3 d 10 22
, 10 25 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 0 9 )

. W e rev ie w se nt en ci ng

arg um en ts th at are no t rai se d in th e di st ric t co ur t un de r th e pl ai n- erro r st an da rd

. See

Uni te d St at es v. Ro dr ig ue z, 62 7 F.3 d 13 72
, 13 77 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 1

S. Ct

. 18 40 (2 01 1)

. Und er th is st an da rd
, a de fen da nt is req ui red to sh ow th at : “ (1 ) an

erro r oc cu rred ; (2 ) th e erro r was pl ai n; (3 ) it affe ct ed [h is ] su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s; an d (4 )

it se rio us ly affe ct ed th e fai rn es s of th e jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Id

. at 13 80 (q uo ta ti on

2om it te d)

. The di st ric t co ur t’s de t e r mi n at io n of th e dr ug qu an ti ty at tri bu ta bl e to a

de fen da nt is rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Ro dr ig ue z, 39 8 F.3 d 12 91
,

12 96 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce a di st ric t c o u r t im po se s fo r

“ reas on ab le ne ss ,” whi ch “ m erel y as ks whe th er th e tri al co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n.”

Uni te d St at es v. Pu gh
, 51 5 F.3 d 11 79
, 11 89 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Ri ta v. Uni te d

St at es , 55 1 U.S. 3 38 , 35 1 (2 00 7) ).

Fi rs t, we are un pe rs ua de d by Gue rra’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t cou rt cle arl y

erre d by ap pl y in g a two -le ve l ag gr av at in g- ro le en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. §

3B 1.1 (c). Und er th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, a two -le ve l ro le en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s if

th e de fen da nt “ was an or ga ni zer, le ad er, m an ag er, or su pe rv is or ” of cri m in al act iv it y

.

U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (c). Alt ho ug h be in g a dr ug su pp li er do es no t au to m at ic al ly m ak e

a de fen da nt a su pe rv is or , “ th e as s e r t i o n of co nt ro l or in flu en ce ov er on ly on e

in di vi du al is en ou gh to su pp or t a § 3B 1.1 (c) en ha nc em en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Ji m in ez,

22 4 F.3 d 12 43
, 12 51 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ) (u ph ol d i n g t h e en ha nc em en t whe re a

co -co ns pi rat or ha d to co ns ul t wit h th e de fen da nt be fo re ag reei ng to se ll dr ug s)

. The

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s p r o vi de th at a se nt en ci ng co ur t m ay rel y on “ rel ev an t

in fo rm at io n wit ho ut reg ard to it s ad m is si bi li ty un de r th e ru le s of ev id en ce ap pl ic ab le

at tri al
, pr ov id ed th at th e in fo rm at io n ha s su ffi ci en t in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty to su pp or t it s

pr ob ab le a c c u r a c y.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1 .3(a ). To pr ev ai l on a ch al le ng e to a se nt en ce

3ba se d on th e co ns id erat io n of he ars ay , a de fen da nt m us t sh ow, f

i r s t, “ th at th e

ch al le ng ed ev id en ce is m at eri al ly fal se or un rel ia bl e.” Uni te d St at es v. Ghe rtl er, 60 5

F.3 d 1 25 6, 1 26 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

In th is cas e, th e di st ric t c o u r t di d no t cl earl y err in ap pl y in g a two -le ve l ro le

en ha nc em en t. As Sp eci al Age nt W hi tt le ’s te st im on y sh owe d, Gue rra was m or e th an

a m ere su pp li er of m et ha m ph et am in e. Gue r r a e x ert ed co nt ro l ov er co -co ns pi rat or s
by pl aci ng th e na rco ti cs th at th ey di s t r i b u t e d in th ei r ve hi cl es , in st ru ct in g th e

co -co ns pi rat or s ab ou t ho w to av oi d de te ct io n, an d es ta bl is hi ng a pr oc es s by whi ch th e

co -co ns pi rat or s co ul d re m it th e p ro ceed s o f th ei r m et ha m ph et am in e sa le s t o h im

.

Nor di d th e di st ric t co ur t’s rel i a nc e on Sp eci al Age nt W hi tt le ’s he ars ay

te st im on y am ou nt to pl ai n erro r, th e st an da rd of rev ie w we ap pl y si nc e Gue rra fai le d

to rai se th is is su e in th e di st ric t co ur t. See Ro dr ig ue z, 62 7 F.3 d at 13 77 . Th e m ere

fact th at po rti on s o f W hi tt le ’s tes ti m on y co ns ti tu te d h ears ay do es no t aut om at ic al ly

ren de r th os e po rti on s in ad mi s s i b l e , a s he ars ay is ad m is si bl e at se nt en ci ng if it “ ha s

su ffi ci en t in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1 .3(a ). To pr ev ai l on ap pe al
, Gue rra

wou ld ha ve to sh ow th at W hi tt le ’s te st im on y “ is m at eri al ly fal se or un rel i a b l e.”

Ghe rtl er, 60 5 F.3 d at 12 69

. Alt ho ug h Gue rra ge ne ral ly as se rts th at W hi tt l e ’s

te st im on y was un rel ia bl e, he fai ls t o c i t e a n y ev id en ce to su pp or t th is as se rti on

. In

fact
, W hi tt le ’s t e st im on y in di cat ed th at he was ex te ns iv el y in vo lv ed in th e

4in ve st ig at io n of Gue rra, an d cert ai n as pe ct s of hi s own in te ract io ns wit h Gue rra were

co ns is te nt wit h in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed by ot he rs , m an y of who m accu rat el y id en ti fie d

Gue rra as ha vi ng on ly on e ey e. Gue rra ci te s no in te rn al in co ns is te nc ie s in W hi tt le ’s

se nt en ci ng te st im on y an d po in ts to no in co ns is te nc ie s be twee n W hi tt le ’s se nt en ci ng

te st im on y an d th e in fo rm at io n in cl ud ed in th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t. And

as fo r Gue rra’s as se rti on th at W hi tt le fai le d to di ffer en ti at e th e Gue rra br ot he rs du rin g

hi s s en te nc in g te st im on y , Whi tt le m ad e m an y di st in ct io ns be twee n t he m , in cl ud in g

who was th e he ad of th e or ga ni zat io n, and who was a di rect or , an d di ffer en t act io ns

th ey each to ok

. Bec au se W hi tt le ad eq ua te ly di st in gu is he d be twee n th e two br ot he rs

at se nt en ci ng , W hi tt le ’s te st im on y ha d su ffi ci en t in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty, an d Gue rra ha s

fai le d t o s ho w th at th e d is tri ct co ur t p la in ly erred in rel y in g o n h is tes ti m on y

.

W e al so di sa g r e e wit h Gue rra’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y erre d by

ho ld in g h im res po ns ib le fo r at lea st 1.5 ki lo gr am s o f m et ha m ph et am in e. “ W e h av e

st at ed th at , al th ou gh se nt en ci ng m ay be ba se d on fai r, accu rat e, an d co ns erv at iv e

es ti m at es of th e qu an t i ty of dr ug s at tri bu ta bl e to a de fen da nt , se nt en ci ng can no t be

ba se d on cal cu la ti on s of dr ug qu an ti ti es th at are m erel y sp ecu la ti ve .” Uni te d St at es

v. Si ng le to n, 54 5 F.3 d 93 2, 93 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ta ti on an d al te rat io n om it te d)

.

The Gui de li ne s pr ov id e a ba se of fen se le ve l o f 34 fo r a de fen da nt who se of fen se

in v o l v e d at le as t 1.5 ki lo gr am s, bu t le ss th an 5 ki lo gr am s, of m et ha m ph et am in e.

5U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c)( 3)

.

Here, Gue rra do es no t ch al le ng e th e m an ne r in whi ch t h e dr ug qu an ti ty was

cal cu la te d, or th e in cl us io n of va rio us tra ns act io ns in th e dr ug -q ua nt it y cal cu la ti on

.

To th e ex te nt th at Gue rra is arg ui ng th at W hi tt le ’s te st im on y reg ard in g dr ug qu an ti ty

was in a d mi s s i b le he ars ay , hi s cl ai m is m eri tl es s. As di sc us se d ab ov e, W hi tt le ’s

te st im on y ha d su ffi ci en t in di ci a of rel i a b i l i t y, an d Gue rra fai ls to ex pl ai n why

W hi tt le ’s te st im on y was m at eri al ly fal se or un rel ia bl e, ot he r th an to po in t ou t th at

cert ai n po rti on s of hi s te st im on y co ns ti tu te d he ars ay

. Alt ho ug h Gue rra no te s th at on e

of th e di st rib ut or s di d no t te st ify, he do es no t co nt en d t h a t th is pe rs on wou ld ha ve

co nt rad ic te d an y as pe ct of W hi tt le ’s t es t im on y

. Ghe rtl er, 60 5 F.3 d at 12 69 (n ot in g

th at th e de fen da nt be a r s th e bu rd en of sh owi ng “ th at th e ch al le ng ed ev id en ce is

m at eri al ly fal se or un rel ia bl e”). Fu rth erm or e, ev en if al l of th e tra ns act io ns in vo lv in g

th is di st rib ut or were ex cl ud ed fro m th e dr ug qu an ti ty cal cu la ti on , Gue rra st il l wou ld

be res po ns ib le fo r 71 .39 ou nc es , or ap pr ox ima t el y 2.0 23 91 ki lo gr am s, of

m et ha m ph et a mi n e

. Mo reo ve r, W hi tt le di sc lo se d th e id en ti ty of each un id en ti fie d

co op erat i ng in di vi du al s at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng an d te st ifi ed th at , ba se d on hi s

pe rs on al in vo lv em en t in th e in ve st ig at io n, th e dr ug qu an ti ty es ti m at e ap pe ared to be

a ve ry co ns erv at iv e es ti m at e. Acco rd in gl y , Gue rra ha s fai le d to sh ow th at th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de t e r mi na ti on th at he was res po ns ib le fo r m or e th an 1.5 ki lo gr am s of

6m et ha m

ph et am in e was cle arl y

erro ne ou s.

F in al ly, we reject Gue rra’s cl ai m th at hi s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv e l y

un reas on able

. W e co nside r th e “ ‘sub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d

un de r an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ,’ ” ba se d on th e “ ‘tot al it y of th e

ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Pu gh
, 51 5 F.3 d at 11 90 (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
,

51 (2 00 7 ) )

. Th i s rev ie w is “ de fere nt ia l,” req ui rin g us to de te rm in e “ whe th er th e

se nt en ce im

po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t fai ls to ach ie ve th e pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng as

s t at ed in se ct io n 35 53 (a).” Uni te d St at es v. Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d 78 4, 78 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1

20 05 ). “ [W] e wi l l n o t s e co nd gu es s th e weig ht (o r la ck th ereo f) th at th e [d is tri ct

co ur t] acco rd ed to a gi ve n fact or

. . . a s l o n g as th e se nt en ce ul ti m at el y im po se d is

reas on ab le in li gh t of al l th e ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d.” Uni te d St at es v. Sn ip es , 61 1

F.3 d 85 5, 87 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on , al te rat io n an d emp h a s i s o mitt ed ), cert

.

de ni ed
,

__

_ S.Ct

.

__ _ (2 01 1)

. W e wil l “ va cat e th e se nt en ce if, bu t on ly if, we are le ft

wit h th e de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d a cl ear erro r of

jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s by arri vi ng at a se nt en ce th at li es ou ts id e

The § 3553(a ) fa ctors include: ( 1) the na ture a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the 1 history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d for the se ntence imposed to refle ct the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote re spect for the law, a

nd to provide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need f

or the sente nce imposed to a ffor d adequa te deter renc e; (4) the need to protec t the public; (5) the ne ed to provide the defe ndant with educational or voca tional training or medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the Sente ncing Guidelines ra ng e; (8) the pertinent policy

statements of the Sente ncing Commi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwanted
sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

7th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by th e fact s of th e cas e.” Uni te d St at es v.

Irey, 61 2 F.3 d 11 60
, 11 90 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)
, cert

.

de ni ed
, 13 1 S. Ct

. 18 13 (2 01 1)

. “ The pa rty ch al le ng in g th e se nt en ce be ars th e bu rd en

to sh ow i t is un reas on ab le in li gh t of th e reco rd an d th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s.” Uni te d

St at es v. Tom e, 61 1 F.3 d 13 71
, 13 78 (1 1t h Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 1 S.Ct

. 67 4 (2 01 0)

.

Gue rra’s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. Gue rra was a di rect or of an 2

or ga ni zat io n th at was de sc rib ed as th e pr im ary, if no t th e m os t si gn ifi can t, su pp li er

of crystal m et ha m

ph et am in e in th e Mad is on Co un ty, Fl or id a area

. Acco rd in g to th e

go ve rn m en t, rem ov in g Gue rra an d hi s br ot he r fro m th e co m m un it y ha d a si gn ifi can t

im p a c t o n t h e dr

ug co m m un it y in Mad is on Co un ty. At se nt en ci ng , Gue rra de ni ed

m uc h o f hi s i nv ol ve m en t in th e of fen se , st at in g th at he was on ly res po ns ib le fo r th e

tra ns act io ns wit h W hi tt le
, an d th at ev erythi ng el se was “ jus t be in g pu t on [h im ]. ” In

li gh t of th e la rg e am ou nt of na rco ti cs th at th e co -co ns pi rat or s t r a ns po rte d to no rth

Fl or id a, Gue rra’s in vo lv em en t as a m an ag er or su pe rv i s o r of th e co ns pi racy, an d

Gue rra’s de ni al of m

uc h of hi s in vo lv em en t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

Guer ra doe s not arg ue that his sentenc e is proce durally unrea sonable. To the e x tent he 2
arg ues that the district cour t failed to ade quately

consider c erta in § 3553(a) f actor s, his arg ument is meritless, beca

use the re cord shows tha t the district court off ere d Guer ra a n opportunity

to prese nt miti g ation arg uments and explicitl y said that it had consider ed the § 3553( a) f actor s and tailored the se ntence to take into acc ount the particula r fa cts and c ircumstance s of Guer ra’ s case

. Talley , 431 F.3d a t 786 (holding tha t a district court’s a cknowledg ment that it has considere d the defe ndant’s ar g uments and the § 3553(a ) fa ctors is sufficie nt).

8di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g th at a se nt en ce at th e l o w e n d o f t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e

ran ge was ne ces sa ry to refl ect th e se rio us ne ss of th e of fen se , pr om ot e res pe ct fo r th e

la w, pr ov id e jus t pu ni sh m en t, de te r fu tu re cri m in al co nd uc t, an d pr ot ect th e pu bl ic

.

See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 2) (A)-(C ).

It al so sh ou ld be no te d th at , al th ou gh Gue rra co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t

ga ve un du e weig ht to hi s two pr io r co nv ic ti on s, Gue rra act ua ll y h a d t e n pr io r

co nv ic ti on s, i nc lu di ng on e co nv ic ti on for po ss es si ng co cai ne wit h i nt en t t o s el l. As

fo r Gue rra’s cl ai m th at hi s “ reci di vi st of fen de r de si gn at io n” ov er-r ep res en te d hi s

act ua l cri m in al hi st or y, i t i s n o t cl ear to wha t de si gn at io n Gue rra is refe rri ng , a s he

was no t se nt en ced as a care er of fen de r. Gue rra di d rece iv e an ad di ti on al two cri m in al

hi st or y po in ts be cau se hi s in st an t offe ns es were co m m it te d le ss th an two y ears aft er

he was rel ea s e d f

ro m cu st od y -- whi ch was pr op er un de r § 4A1 .1(e ) of th e 20 08

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .1(e ) (2 00 8) (in st ru ct in g c o u r t s to ad d two

cri m in al hi st or y po in ts if th e de fen da nt co m m it te d t he in st an t o ffen se les s t ha n two

ye a r s aft er be in g rel eas ed fro m cu st od y ). And
, Gue rra’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t

co ur t se nt en ced hi m ba se d on a de te rm in at io n th at a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of IV

di d no t ad eq ua te ly acc ou nt fo r hi s pa st cri m es is no t su pp or te d by th e reco rd , s in ce

th e di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d Gue rra’s gu id el in e ran ge ba se d on a c r i m in al hi st or y

cat eg or y of IV an d sen te nc ed hi m at t he lo w end of t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge

.

9AFFIRMED.

10