FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 17 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 05- 15448 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 2 0 7 - C R - T - 2 6 - MAP 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 U C E O P O R T O C A R R E R 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

_________________________ ( M ay 17, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A p p e lla n t R u c e o P o r to c a rr e r o ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n a n d 1 3 5 - m o n th2

s e n te n c e f

o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te , a n d c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , f

i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of a m i xtur e a nd s ubs t a nc e c ont a i ni ng a de t e c t abl e a m ountof

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 . A pp. § 1903( a ) , ( g) , a nd ( j ) , a nd 21 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . I. A s a n in itia l m a tte r , th e g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e s th a t w e la c k ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w P o r to c a rr e r o ’s c la im o n ap p e a l th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le . S peci fi ca l l y, the go vernm entar gu es thatC on gres s i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 74 2 l i m i t ed appel l at e j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew ce rt ai n g roun ds on l y, and absentm ee t i ng that s ta tu to ry r e q u ir e m e n t, ad e f e n d a n t c a n n o t o b ta in ap p e lla te r e v ie w o f a s e n te n c e . T he gove rnm e nta c know l e dge s tha tourhol di ng i n U ni ted Stat es v. M

art i nez , 434 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , r e je c te d th e s e a r g u m e n ts ; h o w e v e r , it c la im s th a t its c l a i m s a r e s t i l l vi abl e w hi l e thi s c our tc ons i de r s i t s pe t i t i on f orr e he a r i ng e n banc in M art i nez . I n M art i nez , w e r e

j e c t e d the c ha l l e nge tha tw e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on unde r18 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 to r e v ie w th e r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f a g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . M art i nez , 434 F . 3d a t1321- 22. I n M art i nez , w e e x p la in e d th a t:United States v. Book er, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. C t. 738 (2005). 1 3 F ir s t, p o s t- B oo ke r , thi s C ou rtre peat edl y has re vi ew ed se nt ence s 1 w i thi n the gui de l i ne s r a nge f orunr e a s onabl e ne s s . S e c ond, a l though B oo ke re xc i s e d the s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w i n 18 U . S . C . § 3742( e ) , the S up re m e C ou rtexpl ai ned thatthe [F eder al S ent enci ng ] A ctcont i nu es t o pr ovi de f

orappe a l s f

r om s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i ons ( i rr e s pe c t i ve of w hether the tri al j ud ge se nt ence s w i thi n o r out si de the G ui del i nes r a nge i n the e xe r c i s e of

hi s di s c r e t i ona ry pow e runde r§ 3553( a ) ) , a nd c ite d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) . I d. at13 21 (i nt ernal ci t at i on s a nd qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). T hu s, w e r ea soned that

“ [ a ] l though the S upr e m e C our ti n B oo ke rdi d n oti dent i fyw hi ch prov i si on of § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) p r o v id e d f

o rap p e a ls f

o r‘u n r e a s o n ab le n e s s ,’ w e c o n c lu d e th a t a p o s t- B oo ke rap p e a l b a s e d o n th e ‘u n r e a s o n ab le n e s s ’ o f a s e n te n c e , w h e th e rw ith in or ou t si de the advi sorygu i del i nes r ange, i s a n app ea l as se rt i ng thatthe se nt ence w as i m po se d i n v i ol at i on of l aw pu rs uantt o § 37 42 (a )( 1). ” I d. at13 22 . In a ddi t i on, on M a r c h 6, 2006, w e de ni e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s pe t i t i on f orr e he a r i ng en banc i n M

art i nez . A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatw e have j uri sdi ct i on un der § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) to r e v ie w P o r to c a rr e r o ’s s e n te n c e f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . II. P o r to c a rr e r o n e x t a r g u e s th a t w e s h o u ld n o t p r e s u m e th a t h is s e n te n c e is r e a s o n ab le ju s t b e c a u s e it w a s im p o s e d w ith in th e c a lc u la te d g u id e lin e r a n g e . P ort ocarre ro cl ai m s thathi s s ent ence w as un re as on abl e bec ause the di stri ctcourt m i s appr e he nde d i t s a uthor i ty t o c ons i de rhi s a ge a nd i nf i rm i ty i n f

a s hi oni ng a4

re as on abl e s ent ence . H e a rgues thathi s 135 -m on th sent ence w as grea t erthan ne c e s s a ry t o s e rve the purpos e s of s e nt e nc i ng be c a us e : ( 1) he pl a y e d as m a l l a nd i s ol a t e d r ol e i n a l a r ge rc ons pi r a c y ; ( 2) he ha d no pr i orc r i m i na l r e c or d; a nd ( 3) he m a y n e v e rs e e h is f

a m ily a g a in . P ur s ua ntt o the S upr e m e C our t ’ s i ns truc t i ons i n B oo ke r , w e r evi ew a di stri ct c our t ’ s s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d a f t e rc ons ul t i ng the gui de l i ne s a nd c ons i de r i ng the f a c to r s s e t f

o r th a t § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , f

o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . B oo ke r , 543 U . S . a t260- 261, 1 2 5 S . C t. a t 7 6 5 . I n a s s e s s in g th e r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f a s e n te n c e , th e f

a c to r s th a t a di stri ctcourtshou l d con si der i ncl ud e the nature a nd ci rc um st ance s of the offens e, the hi st ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant , the need for adequat e det erre nce and p rot ec t i on of the pu bl i c, the pert i nentS ent enci ng C om m i ss i on po l i cy s ta te m e n ts , a n d th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a rr a n te d s e n te n c in g d is p a r itie s . See 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 1) - ( 7) . A l though as e nt e nc e w i thi n the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge is n o t p er se r e a s o n ab le , w e o r d in a r ily e x p e c t s u c h a s e n te n c e to b e r e a s o n ab le . See U ni ted Stat es v. T

al l ey , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h is e x p e c ta tio n is m e a s u r e d a g a in s t th e r e c o r d , a n d P o r to c a rr e r o b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in lig h t o f th e r e c o r d a n d th e 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . I d. In rev i ew i n g fo r reaso n ab l en ess, w e “ w o u l d n o tex p ectth e d i stri ctco u rti n ev ery case t o c onduc ta n a c c ount i ng of e ve ry § 3553( a ) f

a c t or. . . a nd e xpound upon how5

ea ch fa ct or pl ay ed a r ol e i n i t s s ent enci ng deci si on . ” See U ni ted Stat es v. R ob l es , 40 8 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 28 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). W e c onc l ude f

r om the r e c or d tha tP or t oc a rr e r o’ s s e nt e nc e of 135 m onths i m pri sonm enti s r ea sonabl e. C on tra ryt o P ort ocarre ro’ s c on t ent i on , the di stri ct c o u r t u n d e r s to o d th a t th e g u id e lin e r a n g e w a s a d v is o ry a n d th a t it w a s f r e e to f a s hi on a n appr opr i a t e s e nt e nc e t a ki ng i nt o c ons i de r a t i on § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . T he re cord revea l s thatthe courtconsi dere d P ort ocarre ro’ s r ol e i n the offens e, hi s a ge, i nfi rm i ty, and the po ss i bi l i ty thathe m aynever s ee hi s f am i l y a gai n. F urtherm ore, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s m ot i on f ora dow nw a r d de pa r tur e a nd re du ce d P ort ocarre ro’ s t ot al offe nse l evel by tw o p oi nt s. T he courtconsi dere d P o r to c a rr e r o ’s a r g u m e n ts in m itig a tio n o f h is s e n te n c e a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t a se n ten ce at th e lo w en d o f th e g u id elin es w as a r ea so n ab le o n e. T h u s, th e c o u rt’s de l i be r a t i ons r e f

l e c tc ons i de r a t i on of

s e ve r a l § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s : ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of

the of f e ns e ; ( 2) the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d t o r e f l e c tthe se ri ou snes s of the offens e a nd t o p rom ot e r es pectfor the l aw ; and (3) the hi st ory an d ch ar ac teristics o f th e d ef en d an t. B ec au se th e im p o siti o n o f P o rto ca rr er o ’s s e nt e nc e w a s r e a s one d a nd the s e r e a s ons r e f l e c t e d c ons i de r a t i on of

s e ve r a l of

the re l evantfa ct ors, i ncl ud i ng the gu i del i nes, w e c on cl ud e thatP ort ocarre ro’ s s ent ence is r e a s o n ab le .6 III. N ext , P ort ocarre ro ar gu es , for the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l , thatthe di stri ctcourt l ac ked j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe ca se because the M ar i t i m e D rug L aw E nforcement A ct ( “ M D L E A ” ) i s unc ons t i tut i ona l a s C ongr e s s ’ s l i m i t e d A r t i c l e I pow e r s do not e n c o m p a s s th e a u th o r ity to p u n is h n o n - c itiz e n d ru g tr a f f ic k e r s o n s ta te le s s v e s s e ls o n th e h ig h s e a s . P o r to c a rr e r o c o n te n d s th a t C o n g r e s s ’s ju r is d ic tio n to le g is la te unde rthe M D L E A c a nnote xt e nd a ny f ur the rtha n tha tgr a nt e d t o i tunde rthe P ir a c ie s a n d F e lo n ie s C la u s e o f A r tic le I , a n d th a t C o n g r e s s is n o t a llo w e d to c r i m i na l i z e a ny c onduc ton the hi gh s e a s r e ga r dl e s s of i t s l a c k of

c onne c t i on t o the U n ite d S ta te s . P o r to c a rr e r o a r g u e s f u r th e rth a t h e h a s n o t w a iv e d h is r ig h t to chal l enge the const i tut i on al i ty of the M D L E A , and h i s c hal l enge t o the di stri ct court ’ s s ubj ec t -m att erj uri sdi ct i on ca n b e r ai se d atany t i m e a nd shou l d b e r evi ew ed de no vo . O urr e vi e w of

a c ha l l e nge t o the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of a s t a tut e , ba s e d on the a s s e r t i on tha tC ongr e s s e xc e e de d i t s a uthor i ty i n e na c t i ng the s t a tut e a nd thus depri ved the di stri ctcourtof j uri sdi ct i on , i s l i m i t ed t o “ a s ea rc h for pl ai n err or” w h e r e th e ap p e lla n t f

a ile d to r a is e th e is s u e a t tr ia l. Un i te d S ta te s v . Wi l l i a ms , 121 F . 3d 615, 618 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( r e vi e w i ng c ha l l e nge t o C hi l d S uppor tE nf or c e m e nt A ct ). T o sat i sf

y the pl ai n-error s t andard, w e m ustfi nd that(1) the di stri ctcourt7

com m i tt ed “ error, ” ( 2) the error w as pl ai n o r obv i ou s, and (3) the error “ af fe ct ed s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts ” in th a t th e e rr o rw a s p r e ju d ic ia l a n d n o t h a rm le s s . U n i ted S ta tes v . O lano , 50 7 U . S . 72 5, 73 0-32 , 11 3 S . C t . 17 70 , 17 76 (199 3). If these cr i t er i a a re m e t , w e m a y , i n ourdi s c r e t i on, c orr e c tthe pl a i n e rr ori f i t“ s e r i ous l y a f

f e c 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. ” I d. a t7 3 6 , 1 1 3 S. C t . a t1779 ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . W e ha ve he l d, how e ve r , tha t“ a n e rr orc a nnot m e e tthe ‘ pl a i n’ r e qui r e m e ntof the pl a i n e rr orrul e unl e s s i ti s ‘ c l e a runde rc urr e nt l aw . ’ . . . W here nei ther the S up re m e C ou rtno r thi s C ou rthas e ver r es ol ved an i ss ue, and o ther c i rc ui t s a re spl i ton i t , there ca n b e no p l ai n err or i n regard t o that i ss ue. ” U

n i ted S ta tes v. A g u i l la rd , 217 F . 3d 1319, 1321 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . N e ve r the l e s s , w e ha ve s t a t e d tha tthe r e i s “ no pl a i ne re rr ortha n t o a l l ow a c on vi ct i on t o st and u nd era s t atut e w hi ch C on gres s w as w i tho utpo w ert o enact . ” U ni ted Stat es v. W

alke r , 59 F . 3d 11 96 , 11 98 (11th C i r. 19 95 ). T he M D L E A pr ovi de s , i n r e l e va ntpa r t , tha t“ [ i ] ti s unl a w f ul f ora ny p e r s o n o n b o a r d a v e s s e l s u b je c t to th e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , . . . to pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o m a nuf a c tur e ordi s tr i but e , a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e . ” 46 U . S . C . A p p . § 1 9 0 3 (a). A “ v essel su b j ectt o th e j u ri sd i ct i o n o f th e U n i t ed S t at es” in clu d es “a v es se l w ith o u t n atio n ality,” w h ich in tu rn is d ef in ed to in clu d e “a ve s s e l aboa r d w hi c h the m a s t e rorpe r s on i n c ha r ge m a ke s a c l a i m of r e gi s try a nd8

the cl ai m ed nat i on of re gi strydo es no taf fi rm at i vel y a nd un equi vo ca l l y a ss ertthat the vess el i s of i t s nat i on al i ty. ” 46 U . S . C . A pp . § 1 90 3(c) (1)( A ) a nd (c )( 2)(C ). M oreover, w e have not ed that“ thi s c i rc ui tand o ther c i rc ui t s have notem bel l i shed the M D L E A w i th a nexu s r equi re m ent . ” U ni te d State s v . R e ndon , 354 F . 3d 1320, 1 3 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 54 1 U . S . 10 35 , 12 4 S . C t . 21 10 (200 4). P or t oc a rr e r o f

a i l s t o s how tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d pl a i n e rr orby not fin d in g th e M D L E A u n co n stitu ti o n al b ec au se it s e n ac tm en t ex ce ed ed C o n g re ss ’s a u th o r ity , s in c e n e ith e rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t n o rw e h a v e s p o k e n o n th is is s u e . I V. F i na l l y , P or t oc a rr e r o a r gue s tha tthe M D L E A i s unc ons t i tut i ona l be c a us e the of f e ns e c ont a i ns a j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e nt , butthe s t a tut e r e m ove s tha te l e m e ntf r om the j ury ’ s c ons i de r a t i on. P or t oc a rr e r o a r gue s tha tthi s r e m ova l vi ol a t e s the S upr e m e C our t ’ s hol di ng i n U n ite d S ta te s v . G a u d in , 5 1 5 U .S . 5 0 6 , 1 1 5 S . C t. 2 3 1 0 ( 1 9 9 5 ) , th a t e v e ry e le m e n t o f a n o f f e n s e m u s t b e s u b m itte d to th e ju ry . P or t oc a rr e r o a c know l e dge s tha tourde c i s i on i n U ni ted Stat es v. T

i no co , 304 F . 3d 1088 ( 11th C i r . 2002) , f or e c l os e s thi s a r gum e nt , butr a i s e s the i s s ue “ pr i m a r i l y f or pu rposes of e n banc or cert i o ra rire vi ew . ” I n G a u d in , the S up re m e C ou rthel d that“ [t ] he C on st i tut i on gi ves acr i m i nal d e f e n d a n t th e r ig h t to h a v e aju ry d e te rm in e , b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t, h is g u ilt9

of e ve ry e l e m e ntof

the c r i m e w i th w hi c h he i s c ha r ge d. ” 515 U . S . a t522- 23, 115 S . C t . a t2320. B a s e d on G a u d in , P ort ocarre ro ar gu es thatj uri sdi ct i on i s a n e l e m e ntof

hi s c r i m e , a nd the r e f

or e , tha ti tm us tbe f

ound by a j ury be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt . T he M D L E A , how e ve r , s pe c i f i c a l l y pr ovi de s tha t : “ J ur i s di c t i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i th r e s pe c tt o ve s s e l s s ubj e c tt o thi s c hapt e ri s nota n e l e m e nt of any off

ense . A l l j uri sdi ct i on al i ss ues a ri si ng un der thi s c hapt erar e pre l i m i nary que s t i ons of

l a w t o be de t e rm i ne d s ol e l y by the tr i a l j udge . ” 46 U . S . C . A pp. § 1 9 0 3 ( f ) . I n T i no co , the appe l l a nt s c ha l l e nge d the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of the M D L E A by a r g u in g , in r e le v a n t p a r t, th a t G a u d in r e qui r e d the j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e ntof the o f f e n s e to b e d e c id e d b y a ju ry , n o t b y th e ju d g e a s a p r e lim in a ry q u e s tio n o f la w . See T i no co , 304 F . 3d a t1095. W e s t a t e d: B y a ddi ng t o the M D L E A the j ur i s di c t i on a nd ve nue pr ovi s i on, 46 U .S .C . ap p . § 1 9 0 3 ( f

) , C o n g r e s s , a s w e h a v e p o in te d o u t, p la in ly i ndi c a t e d tha tw he the ra ve s s e l i s s ubj e c tt o the j ur i s di c t i on of the U ni t ed S t at es i s notan el em entof the offens e, bu ti nst ea d i s s ol el y a n i ssu e o f su b

j ectm att er j u ri sd i ct i o n th atsh o u l d b e treat ed as a pr e l i m i na ry que s t i on of l a w f orthe c our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on. . . . T he st atut ory l angu age of the M D L E A no w un am bi gu ou sl y m andat es that the j uri sdi ct i on al re qu i re m entbe tre at ed on l y a s aqu es t i on of subj ec t m att erj uri sdi ct i on for the courtt o d ec i de. I d. a t1105- 06. I n T

i no co , there fore , w e “ re j ec t [e d] the appel l ant s’ ar gu m entthat the M D L E A . . . i s uncon st i tut i on al un der G a u d in . . . because the j uri sdi ct i on al10

prov i si on here i s nota tra di t i on al el em ent , or otherw i se an es se nt i al i ng re di ent , of a cr i m i nal offe nse. ” I

d. a t1111- 12. F ur the rm or e , i n R e ndon , w e r e - a f f irm e d its hol di ng i n T

i no co . See R e ndon , 354 F . 3d a t1326- 28. T hus , be c a us e w e r e

j e c t e d P or t oc a rr e r o’ s a r gum e ntaboutthe c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of

the M D L E A i n T

i no co a nd R e ndon , w e c on cl ud e that P o rt o carrero ’ s arg u m en ti s m eri t l ess. F orthe above - s t a t e d r e a s ons , w e a f f i rm P or t oc a rr e r o’ s c onvi c t i on a nd se nt ence . AF F I RME D.