FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 26, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 14151 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 1 - 0 0 9 7 5 - CR- SH 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 F E L I X E S T E B A N T H O M A S , D e fe 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 forthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 26, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L , an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e: F el i x E st eban T ho m as appeal s hi s 121 -m on th sent ence , w hi ch w as i m po se d a f t e rhe pl e d gui l t y t o c ons pi r a c y t o obs tr uc t , de l a y , a nd a f fe c tc om m e r c e by r obbe r y , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1951( a ) . O n a ppe a l , T hom a s r a i s e s the2

fo l l o w i n g cl ai m s: (1 ) th e d i stri ctco u rtv i o l at ed ex p o stfact o an d d u e p ro cess pri nci pl es by se nt enci ng hi m base d o n a re troac t i ve appl i ca t i on of the re m edi al op i ni on i n U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0 (20 05 ); (2) the di stri ctcourt vi ol a t e d the F i f

th A m e ndm e nt ’ s I ndi c t m e ntC l a us e , B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 29 6 (20 04 ), and B oo ker, by enhanci ng hi s off ense l evel base d o n fac t s that w e r e n o t a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t, fo u n d b y aju r y , o ra d m itte d b y h im ; a n d ( 3 ) h is 1 2 1 - mo n th s e n t e n c e w a s n o tr e a s o n a b l e . A f t e rc ar e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I. W e rev i ew d e n o v o a d efen d an t ’ s cl ai m th ath i s sen t en ce v i o l at ed ex p o st fa ct o p ri nci pl es . U ni t ed S t at es v. A braham , 38 6 F . 3d 10 33 , 10 37 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ), c e r t . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 417 ( 2005) . A c ha l l e nge t o the a ppl i c a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s i s am i xe d que s t i on of l a w a nd fa c t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A n d er so n , 3 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 2 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s f i ndi ngs of

fa c tforc l e a re r r ora nd i t s a ppl i c a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s t o thos e fa c t s de novo. I d. I n r e vi e w i ng the ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our tfor re as on abl enes s, w e c on si der the fi nal se nt ence , i n i t s e nt i re t y, i n l i gh tof the § 35 53 (a ) fac t ors. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ear, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 45 (11t h C i r. 2005) ( “ W e do nota ppl y the r e a s ona bl e ne s s s t a nda r d t o e a c h i ndi vi dua l de c i s i on m a de dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e s s ; r a the r , w e r e vi e w the f i na l s e nt e nc e for3

r e a s o n a b le n e s s .” ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . C r a w fo r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng tha tpr e - B ooke rs t a nda r ds forr e vi e w i ng a ppl i c a t i on of the S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es st i l l ap p l y p o st -B o o k er b ecau se th e “ reaso n ab l en ess” st andard appl i es t o the ul t i m at e s ent ence i m po se d, no tappl i ca t i on of i nd i vi du al gui de l i ne s ) . O ur“ [ r ] e vi e w forr e a s ona bl e ne s s i s de fe r e nt i a l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ [ T ] he pa r t y w ho c ha l l e nge s the s e nt e nc e be a r s the bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s ona bl e i n the l i ghtof both th[ e ] r e c or d a nd the fa c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” I d. II . T he fa c t s r e l e va ntt o T hom a s ’ s s e nt e nc i ng c l a i m s a r e the s e . O n O c t obe r25, 2 0 0 1 , T h o m as an d fi v e o th ers w ere i n d i ct ed fo r (1 ) co n sp i racy t o o b stru ct , d el ay, a nd a f fe c tc om m e r c e by r obbe r y , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1951( a ) ( C ount 1) ; ( 2) c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve orm or e ki l ogr a m s of c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

2 1 U. S . C . § § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) , 8 4 6 ( C o u n t2 ) ; a n d ( 3 ) t wo c ount s of c ons pi r a c y t o c a r r y af

i r e a r m dur i ng adr ug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e a nd c r i m e of vi ol e nc e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) a nd ( o) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2 ( C ount s 3 a nd 4) . T hr e e of T hom a s ’ s c o- c ons pi r a t or s , A l e xa nde rB r a z a ba n, J or ge M a r t i n P e na , a nd F r a nc i s c o I s a i aC a s t i l l o, e nt e r e d gui l t y pl e a s t o s om e of the c o u n ts o f th e in d ic tm e n t. I n D e c e m b e ro f 2 0 0 2 , B r a z a b a n , w h o p le d g u ilty toAfter the brief s werefiled in the instant appeal, on Febr uary 27, 2006, Pena, who pled 1 guiltyto Counts 2 and 4, was sentenc ed to 52 months’ imprisonment, and Castillo, who pled guilty to C ou nts 2, 4, and5, wa s sentenc e d to53 months ’ i mpriso nment. 4 C ount s 1 a nd 3, r e c e i ve d as e nt e nc e of 41 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . O n M a y 21, 1 2002, T hom a s a nd the t w o r e m a i ni ng c o- c ons pi r a t or s , M i gue l B e r r oaa nd A r ia s m e n d y P ilie r , p r o c e e d e d to ajo in t ju r y tr ia l. D uri ng tri al , D et ec t i ve Juan S anchez, of the M i am i -D ade C ou nt y P ol i ce D epar t m ent , t es t i fi ed thatw hi l e w orki ng i n an u nd er cover capaci t y, he l earned of T ho m as ’ s w i l l i ng ness t o com m i ta hom e i nv as i on robb er y. D et ec t i ve S anchez t e s t i f i e d tha the pl a nne d t o pos e a s adi s gr unt l e d dr ug c our i e ra nd a s k T hom a s for hel p i n rob bi ng the peop l e he ( S anchez) cl ai m ed t o w ork for. A no ther und er cover offi ce r gave D et ec t i ve S anchez’ s pho ne nu m ber t o T ho m as . D et ec t i ve S anchez and T ho m as had n um er ou s pho ne conv er sa t i on s a nd al so m eti n p er son sever al tim e s . D u r in g o n e o f

th e irm e e tin g s , D e te c tiv e S a n c h e z r e la y e d th e s itu a tio n to T ho m as and asked hi m i f he w as abl e c om m i tthe robb er y a nd T ho m as answ er ed affi rm at i v el y. A f t e rthe y ha d di s c us s e d the l ogi s t i c s of the r obbe r y , T hom a s t ol d D e t e c t i ve S a nc he z t o pr ovi de the a ddr e s s of hi s ne xtc oc a i ne de l i ve r y a nd i ndi c a t e d tha tthe r obbe r y w oul d t a ke pl a c e the n. T hom a s s a i d tha the w oul d r e c r ui ta tl e a s tthr e e or four peop l e t o h el p h i m com m i tthe robb er y. D et ec t i ve S anchez t ol d T ho m as that5

he w oul d be tr a ns por t i ng am i ni m um of 25 ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne a nd a ts om e poi nt dur i ng the i rdi s c us s i ons , T hom a s i ndi c a t e d he w a s a w a r e tha tone ki l ogr a m of coca i ne w as w orth $ 10 0, 00 0. T ho m as al so sa i d thathe previ ou sl y had com m i tt ed a hom e i nv as i on robb er y a nd thathe had t i ed up the vi cti m s. D et ec t i ve S anchez r e s p o n d e d th a t h e w a n te d to b e tie d u p if e v e r y o n e e ls e w a s g o in g to b e tie d u p . D ur i ng al a t e rm e e t i ng, T hom a s t ol d D e t e c t i ve S a nc he z tha the ha d r e c r ui t e d four m o r e p e o p le to a s s is t in th e r o b b e r y . T h o m a s e x p la in e d th a t th e y w e r e g o in g to l e a ve S a nc he z t i e d up i ns i de the hous e dur i ng the r obbe r y . O n the da y of the pl a nne d r obbe r y , T hom a s a nd f i ve c o- c ons pi r a t or s m e ta tapr e a r r a nge d m e e t i ng pl a c e a nd pr oc e e de d t o aw a r e hous e w he r e D e t e c t i ve S a nc he z c a l l e d T hom a s a nd gave hi m the address for the robb er y. T he conspi ra t ors s ub se qu ent l y w er e arr es t ed an d fo u r fi rearm s w ere fo u n d i n o n e o f th ei r v eh i cl es. C o - c o n s p ir a to rC a s tillo te s tif ie d th a t T h o m a s d is c u s s e d th e r o b b e r y w ith h im on thr e e oc c a s i ons , a nd tha the a c c om pa ni e d T hom a s t o m e e tw i th D e t e c t i ve S a nc he z on one oc c a s i on. O n the da y of the pl a nne d r obbe r y , w he n the c ons pi r a t or s m e t , T hom a s br oughtw i th hi m fourguns tha the s a i d w oul d be n e e d e d to c o m m it th e r o b b e r y . C a s tillo te s tif ie d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d th e p la n w a s to s te a l a p p r o x im a te ly 2 5 k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e .6

T he j ur y a c qui tt e d T hom a s of one of the f i r e a r m s c ha r ge s ( C ount4) but c oul d notr e a c h ave r di c ton the r e m a i ni ng c ount s , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tde c l a r e d a m i s tr i a l a s t o thos e c ount s . C o- de fe nda nt s B e r r oaa nd P i l i e rw e r e a c qui tt e d of C ou nt s 2, 3, and 4 and t he di stri ctcourtdecl ar ed a m i stri al on C ou nt1. B erroa, P i l i e r , a nd T hom a s s ubs e que nt l y pl e d gui l t y t o C ount1 of the i ndi c t m e nt . T he di stri ctcourtw ai ved t he re qu i re m entof a pre se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ) as t o B erroa a nd se nt ence d h i m t o t i m e s er ved and a 2-y ear t er m of supervi se d r e le a s e . I n e x c h a n g e fo rT h o m a s ’s p le aa s to C o u n t 1 , th e g o v e r n m e n t a g r e e d to d is m is s C o u n ts 2 a n d 3 . D ur i ng T hom a s ’ s pl e ac ol l oquy , he s t a t e d tha the unde r s t ood tha tthe m a xi m um s t a tut or y s e nt e nc e on C ount1 w a s 20 y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , a nd tha tthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d d et er m i ne the approp ri at e pun i shm entpu rs uantt o the advi sory S ent enci ng G ui del i nes. T ho m as al so st at ed thatthe fa ct s i n the profferhe si gn ed w e r e c or r e c t . T he fa c tua l pr of fe rs t a t e d, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha ti n S e pt e m be ra nd O c t obe r2001, T hom a s c ons pi r e d w i th hi s c o- de fe nda nt s t o c om m i tar obbe r y of coca i ne. T ho m as had b ee n con t ac t ed by an un derc ov erl aw enforce m entoffi ce r na m e d “ J ua n, ” w ho w a s pos i ng a s ape r s on w or ki ng forC ol om bi a n c oc a i ne tr a f f ic k e r s . T h o m a s a g r e e d to fo llo w J u a n d u r in g o n e o f h is c o c a in e d e liv e r ie s to the C ol om bi a ns . T hom a s a nd hi s c o- de fe nda nt s pl a nne d t o e nt e rthe r e s i de nc e a nd7

t a ke the c oc a i ne by thr e a torfor c e . T hom a s a nd hi s c o- de fe nda nt s w e ntt o a l oc a t i on w he r e the y w e r e s uppos e d t o w a i tforJ ua n t o c a l l the m a nd t e l l the m the l oc a t i on of

the de l i ve r y . E a c h of

the m w a s r e a dy a nd w i l l i ng t o c om m i tthe robb er y. A tthe m ee t i ng pl ac e, w here the conspi ra t ors w er e arr es t ed, l aw e nfor c e m e ntfound fourf i r e a r m s i n aba g l oc a t e d i n the c a rw i th t w o of the conspi ra t ors. A ft erthe di stri ctcourtac ce pt ed T ho m as ’ s gui l t y pl ea , he proceeded to s e n te n c in g . T he P S I c a l c ul a t e d aba s e of fe ns e l e ve l of

20, pur s ua ntt o the gui de l i ne for robb er y, U . S . S . G . § 2 B 3. 1(a) , and recom m ended t he fol l ow i ng adj ust m ent s: (1) a 5- l e ve l i nc r e a s e pur s ua ntt o § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( C ) be c a us e af i r e a r m w a s br a ndi s he d or pos s e s s e d; ( 2) a2- l e ve l i nc r e a s e pur s ua ntt o § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 4) ( B ) be c a us e ape r s on w as p h ysi cal l y restrai n ed ; (3 ) a 1 -l ev el i n crease p u rsu an tt o § 2 B 3 . 1 (b )(6 ) b ecau se ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e w a s the obj e c tof the of fe ns e ; ( 4) a3- l e ve l i nc r e a s e pur s ua nt t o § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 7) ( D ) be c a us e the l os s a m ountw a s m or e tha n $250, 000, butnot m o re th an $ 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 ; an d (4 ) a 4 -l ev el i n crease p u rsu an tt o § 3 B 1 . 1 (a) b ecau se T ho m as w as an organi ze r or l ea der i n the cr i m i nal ac t i vi t y. A ft era 2-l evel decr ea se for T ho m as ’ s a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i t y, hi s a dj ust ed offens e l evel w as 3 3 . W ith ac r im in a l h is to r y c a te g o r y I , T h o m a s fa c e d aG u id e lin e s r a n g e o f 1 3 5 to 1 6 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t.8

T hom a s f

i l e d t w o s e nt e nc i ng obj e c ti ons , both of w hi c h r e l a t e d t o B l a ke l y or B o o k e ro rb o th . H e a s s e r te d th a t th e a p p lic a tio n o f B o o k e r ’s r e m e d ia l h o ld in g to r e n d e rth e G u id e lin e s r a n g e a d v is o r y in h is c a s e v io la te d e x p o s t fa c to p r in c ip le s . H e a r gue d tha tbe c a us e the G ui de l i ne s w e r e nota dvi s or y w he n he c om m i tt e d the cr i m e, they c ou l d n otbe appl i ed as advi sory t o h i s di sa dv ant age. Inst ea d, T ho m as urged t hatthe pre-Bo ok erm andat ory r egi m e, as constra i ned b y B l akel y, control l ed a nd r e qui r e d the fa c t s s uppor t i ng the e nha nc e m e nt s i n the P S I t o be c ha r ge d i n the i nd i ctm entand p roven t o a j ury or a gree d t o b y hi m . H e a l so obj ec t ed t o every en h an cem en tap p l i ed t o h i s b ase o ffen se l ev el u n d er B l ak el y an d B o o k er b ecau se th e fa c ts s u p p o r tin g th e e n h a n c e m e n ts w e r e n o t fo u n d b y aju r y o rs tip u la te d to in the pl e apr oc e e di ngs . F i na l l y , T hom a s ur ge d tha ti n de t e r m i ni ng hi s s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d c ons i de rtha the fa c e d de por t a t i on fol l ow i ng hi s i nc a r c e r a t i on an d th erefo re w as l ess o f a th reatt o p eo p l e i n th e U n i t ed S t at es. T h o m as al so hi ghl i ght e d tha tc o- de f

e nda ntB e r r oaw a s s e nt e nc e d t o t i m e s e r ve d a f t e rbe i ng i nc a r c e r a t e d fora bout41 m onths , a nd c o- de fe nda ntB r a z a ba n ha d r e c e i ve d a41- m on th sent ence . D u rin g th e s en ten cin g h ea rin g , th e c o u rt o v er ru led all o f T h o m as ’s obj ec t i on s. A tthe go vernm ent ’ s r equest , the courtgrant ed T ho m as a 3-l evel r e duc t i on fora c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i t y , r a the rtha n the 2- l e ve l r e duc t i on9

r e c om m e nde d i n the P S I , the r e by gi vi ng hi m a n a dj us t e d of fe ns e l e ve l of

32 a nd a corr es po nd i ng G ui del i nes r ange of 12 1 t o 1 51 m on ths. T he di stri ctcourtthen c o n s id e r e d m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s , in c lu d in g th a t T h o m a s w a s s o r r y fo rh is co n d u ctan d w as g o i n g t o b e d ep o rt ed aft er serv i n g h i s p ri so n sen t en ce. F i n al l y, the di stri ctcourtst at ed thati thad con si dere d the P S I, the advi sory G ui del i nes r a nge , a nd the fa c t or s i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , a nd tha tas e nt e nc e a tthe l ow e nd of the a dvi s or y r a nge w a s a ppr opr i a t e a nd w oul d a de qua t e l y a ddr e s s the s e r i ous na tur e of the of fe ns e . T he c our tthe n i m pos e d a121- m onth j a i l s e nt e nc e t o be fol l ow e d by thr e e y e a r s ’ s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e . T hi s a ppe a l fol l ow e d. II I. F i rst , T h o m as arg u es th atal th o u g h th e B o o k er co n st i tu t i o n al h o l d i n g m u st be appl i ed re troac t i vel y t o h i s c as e, the di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i ca t i on of the B oo ker st atut ory or r em edi al ho l di ng , w hi ch re nd er ed the G ui del i nes a dv i sory , vi ol at ed ex pos tfa c t o pr i nc i pl e s a nd hi s due pr oc e s s r i ghtt o “ fa i rw a r ni ng” unde rB oui e v. C i t y of C ol um bi a, 37 8 U . S . 34 7, 35 3 (19 64 ) ( ho l di ng thatj ud i ci al enl ar gem entof a c r im in a l s ta tu te , a p p lie d r e tr o a c tiv e ly , v io la te d th e D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e b e c a u s e it w as un fore se eabl e a nd l i ke an ex po stfa ct o l aw ). In supp ortof thi s nov el a r g u me n t , h e s t a t e s th a tu n d e rth e ma n d a t o r y s e n t e n c i n g r e g i me i n p l a c e a tth e t i me o f h is c r im e , th e m a x im u m p e n a lty h e c o u ld r e c e iv e , c o n s is te n t w ith th e S ix th10

A m e ndm e nt , w a s the s e nt e nc e a uthor i z e d onl y by the fa c t s c ha r ge d i n the in d ic tm e n t. H e u r g e s u s to a p p ly th e s e n te n c in g la w s in e f fe c t a t th e tim e o f

h is cr i m es w i th, w hathe t er m s, “ the B l akel y gl oss. ” In A pp re nd i v. N ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6, 49 0 (20 00 ), the S up re m e C ou rt he l d tha t , “ [ o] the rtha n the fa c tof apr i orc onvi c t i on, a ny fa c ttha ti nc r e a s e s the p e n a lty fo rac r im e b e y o n d th e p r e s c r ib e d s ta tu to r y m a x im u m m u s t b e s u b m itte d to aju r y , a n d p r o v e d b e y o n d ar e a s o n a b le d o u b t.” T h e fa c ts m u s t a ls o b e c h a r g e d in the i nd i ctm ent . Id. at47 6. A ft erT ho m as ’ s f i rs ttri al , bu tpri or t o h i s gui l t y pl ea , th e Su p r e me Co u r td e c i d e d b o th Bl a k e l y a n d Bo o k e r . I n Bl a k e l y , th e Su p r e me C our tr e vi s i t e d the A ppr e ndi r ul e i n the c ont e xtof W a s hi ngt on s t a t e ’ s s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s c he m e , a nd c l a r i f i e d tha tthe r e l e va nt“ s t a tut or y m a xi m um forA ppr e ndi pur pos e s i s the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e aj udge m a y i m pos e s ol e l y on the ba s i s of the fa c t s r e f l e c t e d i n th e j u r y v e r d i c to ra d mi tt e d b y th e d e fe n d a n t . ” Bl a k e l y , 5 4 2 U . S. at30 3 (em ph as i s a nd i nt er nal qu ot ati on m arks om i tt ed). In B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rtappl i ed i t s hol di ng i n B l akel y t o the F eder al S ent enci ng G ui del i nes. A ft erB oo ker, “ the S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o tri al by j ury i s vi ol at ed w here un der am andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em a s ent ence i s i ncre as ed beca use of a n enh ance m entbase d o n fac t s fou nd by the j ud ge thatw er e nei ther a dm i tt e d by the de fe nda ntnorfound by the j ur y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 39811

F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . ) ( e m pha s i s om i tt e d) ( c i t i ng B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t231- 45 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5). A s are m edy, i n B oo ker, the C ou rt r e nde r e d the G ui de l i ne s “ e f fe c t i ve l y a dvi s or y ” by e xc i s i ng 18 U . S . C . § 3553( b) ( 1) ( r e q u i r i n g as e n t e n c e w i th i n th e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e , a b s e n tad e p a r tu r e ) a n d 1 8 U . S. C. § 3742( e ) ( e s t a bl i s hi ng s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w on a ppe a l , i nc l udi ng de novo r e vi e w of departures fr om the appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra ng e) . S ee 54 3 U . S . at25 9. T he C ou rt expl ai ned t hat“ [w ] i tho utthe ‘ m andat ory’ prov i si on , the [S ent enci ng R eform ] A ct no nethel es s r equi re s j ud ges t o t ake a cc ou ntof the G ui del i nes t og ether w i th o ther s e nt e nc i ng goa l s . ” I d. a t259. T he C our ta l s o i ns tr uc t e d tha tthe r e m e dy w a s t o be a p p lie d “to a ll c a s e s o n d ir e c t r e v ie w .” I d . a t 2 6 8 . I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 400 F . 3d 1297, 1306- 07 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 1 2 6 S . C t. 4 3 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , w e r e je c te d th e v e r y a r g u m e n t T h o m a s m a k e s h e r e . D unc a n, l i ke T hom a s , r e l i e d on the S upr e m e C our t ’ s B oui e de c i s i on a nd c h a lle n g e d th e r e tr o a c tiv e a p p lic a tio n o f B o o k e r ’s r e m e d ia l o p in io n to h is s e nt e nc i ng, a r gui ng tha tthe a ppl i c a t i on of B ooke rw oul d i nc r e a s e the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e t o w hi c h he w a s s ubj e c t e d. W e di s c e r ne d no e x pos tfa c t o orB oui e due pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on i n the r e tr oa c t i ve a ppl i c a t i on of the B ooke rr e m e di a l hol di ng be c a us e a tthe t i m e D unc a n c om m i tt e d hi s c r i m e , ( 1) the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ode s pe c i f i e d as t a tut or y m a xi m um of l i fe i m pr i s onm e ntforhi s c r i m e ; ( 2) our12

p r e c e d e n t r e c o g n iz e d th a t th e s ta tu to r y m a x im u m w a s th e m a x im u m s p e c if ie d in the C ode ; a nd ( 3) the G ui de l i ne s i nfor m e d the de fe nda nttha tthe s e nt e nc i ng j udge c oul d e nga ge i n fa c t f

i ndi ng a nd c oul d i m pos e apos s i bl e l i fe s e nt e nc e . I d. a t1307- 08; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r t i ne z , 434 F . 3d 1318, 1323- 24 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( h o ld in g th e s a m e w h e r e d e fe n d a n t w a s o n n o tic e th a t th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t w o u ld engage i n fac t fi nd i ng and cou l d i m po se a s ent ence up t o the st atut ory m axi m um ); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D upa s , 419 F . 3d 916, 919- 21 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( r e l y i ng i n pa r ton D u n c a n a n d r e

je c tin g a r g u m e n t th a t d e fe n d a n t’s B o u ie d u e p r o c e s s r ig h t to fa ir w a r n in g w a s v io la te d ; h ig h lig h tin g th a t in B o o k e r , th e C o u r t d ir e c te d th a t b o th o p in io n s w e r e to b e a p p lie d r e tr o a c tiv e ly o n d ir e c t r e v ie w ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 4 8 4 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . D ur i ng hi s pl e ac ol l oquy , T hom a s s a i d he unde r s t ood tha tw he n he c om m i tt e d hi s c r i m e , the m a xi m um pe na l t y forc ons pi r a c y t o obs tr uc t , de l a y , a nd affect com m erce b y ro b b ery p u rsu an tt o th e U n i t ed S t at es C o d e w as 2 0 years’ i m pri sonm ent . S ee 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 1(a) . M oreover, as i n D un ca n, the G ui del i nes in e f fe c t a t th e tim e o f

T h o m a s ’s p le ain fo r m e d h im th a t th e ju d g e m ig h t e n g a g e in j ud i ci al fa ct fi nd i ng atse nt enci ng and cou l d i m po se a s ent ence up t o the st atut ory m a x im u m .13

I n s hor t , w e f

i nd no m e r i tt o T hom a s ’ s a r gum e nt s tha the r e l i e d on the c o n s titu tio n a l im p lic a tio n s o f B la k e ly , r a th e rth a n B o o k e r . T h o m a s p le d g u ilty a f t e rB ooke ra nd, not a bl y , s t a t e d dur i ng the pl e ac ol l oquy tha the unde r s t ood the courtw ou l d app l y the G ui del i nes i n an adv i sory fa shi on . B oth w hen T ho m as c o m m itte d h is c r im e s a n d w h e n h e p le d g u ilty h e w a s o n n o tic e th a t h e c o u ld re ce i ve a s ent ence w i thi n the st atut ory r ange based upo n j ud i ci al fa ct fi nd i ng that w e n t b e y o n d th e ju r y ’s v e r d ic t o rth e fa c ts h e a d m itte d in h is g u ilty p le a . A cc ordi ng l y, w e f

i nd no ex po stfa ct o o r B ou i e due process vi ol ati on here .

I V. W e lik e w is e a r e u n p e r s u a d e d b y T h o m a s ’s a r g u m e n t th a t h e h a d aF if th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o ha ve a l l of the fa c t s us e d t o e nha nc e hi s G ui de l i ne s r a nge found by agr a nd j ur y a nd c ha r ge d i n hi s i ndi c t m e nt , pur s ua ntt o B l a ke l y a nd B oo ker. A cc ordi ng t o A pp re nd i and i t s progeny, any fac tthati ncre as es a s ent ence be y ond the s t a tut or y m a xi m um m us tbe c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c t m e nt . A ppr e ndi , 530 U . S . a t476. A l though B ooke rhe l d tha ta ny fa c ti nc r e a s i ng puni s hm e ntm us tbe a d m itte d b y th e d e fe n d a n t o rp r o v e d to aju r y , w e h a v e s ta te d th a t “b o th m a jo r ity op i ni on s i n B oo ker m ake c l ear thatthe deci si ve fa ct or thatm akes pre- B oo ker s e nt e nc i ng pr obl e m a t i c i s note xtr a - ve r di c te nha nc e m e nt s butthe i rus e i n a m andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em . ” R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at13 01 ; se e a l so U ni t edWe areunpersuaded by Thomas’s related argument, made in the broadest of terms and 2 without citations to caselaw, that there w as insufficient evidenceto s upport base of fenselevel enhanc ements for

(1) possessinga f

i re arm , U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b) (2)( C); (2) phy sical re straint of another , U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b) (4 )(B ); (3) thefac t that a controlled substanc e wa s the object of the robb ery , U .S. S.G . § 2B 3. 1(b) (6 ); (4 ) thefac t that the los s amo unt exce e de d $25 0, 00 0 but w a s le ss than $800,000, U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b) (7)( D); and ( 5) his role a s an org anizer or leader in the of fense , U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. T h e Go v ernment bore the burden of e stablishing by a preponderance of

the evidenc e the f

acts ne cessa

ry to supportthese sentencingenhanc ements. United States v. Aske w, 193 F.3d 1181, 1183 ( 11th Cir. 1999). Ba sed on our revie w, it is plain that Thomas’s own admissions, both at the plea colloquy and in thefac tual proffer he si g ne d insupp ort of his ple a , f

ully supp ort all o f the see nh anc e ments . Thomas admitted that he conspired with f ive others to c ommit a robbery of coc aine and that on the night of the planned robbery , four guns werefound in one of his c o-def endants’ bag s when the conspirator s were arrested after they rende zvoused to commit the robber y . Thomas further admitted that he planne d to take the c ocainethrough threat o r fo rc e. Detec tive Sanchez’s testimony that Th o m a s s ai dh ew a s g o i n gto ti e S an c h e z upduri n gth ero b b ery, a s h eh adduri n ga p ri o r ro b b ery, further s u p p o rt edthe enhancement for phy sically restraining a

person. More over, D etec tive Sanchez’s testimony

that he told Thomas that 25 kilograms of coc aine would beat the home at the time of the robbery and the fac t that Thomas indicated heknew that a kilogram was w orth $100,000 supported the amount of loss e n h an ce ment. Finally , the role enhancement was supporte d by Detec tive Sanchez’s testimony that Thomas re cruited theothers and c o-def endant Castil lo’s te sti m o ny th at Th o m a s re c ru i te d hi m . A c c o rdi n g l y , th e di s tri c t c o urt di d n o t c l e arl y err in i ts c alc ulatio n o f Tho ma s’ s adju ste d o ff e ns ele vel. 14 S t at es v. C hau, 42 6 F . 3d 13 18 , 13 23 -24 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng thati f adi stri ct courtappl i es the G ui del i nes a s a dv i sory , no thi ng i n B oo ker prohi bi t s the di stri ct courtfr om m aki ng , un der aprepon dera nce- of-the-e vi dence s t andard, addi t i on al fa ctual fi nd i ng s thatgo beyond a def endant ’ s a dm i ss i on ). B ec ause T ho m as ’ s 121 -m on th sent ence di d n otexce ed the st atut ory m a xi m um , a nd the di s tr i c tc our ta ppl i e d the G ui de l i ne s i n a n a dvi s or y fa s hi on, the d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly e n h a n c e d T h o m a s ’s a d v is o r y g u id e lin e s r a n g e b a s e d o n fa c ts n o tc h a r g e d i n th e i n d i c t me n to ra d mi tt e d b y h i m. 215 V. F i nal l y, T ho m as chal l enges the re as on abl enes s of hi s s ent ence . T ho m as a r gue s tha thi s 121- m onth s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s ona bl e be c a us e i ti s t oo s e ve r e a nd resu l t ed i n si g n i fi can tsen t en ci n g d i sp ari t y, i n l i g h to f h i s co -co n sp i rat o rs’ s e nt e nc e s r a ngi ng f

r om 41 t o 53 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . H e a l s o c ont e nds tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t p r o v id e s u f f ic ie n t r e a s o n in g to s u p p o r t h is 1 2 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e . A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, T hom a s ’ s c ouns e l a s s e r t e d the fol l ow i ng gr ounds i n su p p o rto f a sen t en ce b el o w th e G u i d el i n es ran g e o f 1 2 1 t o 1 5 1 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm ent : (1) T ho m as w as sorr y for hi s c on du ct ; (2) T ho m as fa ce d de por t a t i on a f

t e rhi s i nc a r c e r a t i on; ( 3) T hom a s ’ s y outh; a nd ( 4) T hom a s ’ s dr i nki ng p ro b l em . T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so h eard T h o m as’ s st at em en task i n g fo r fo rg i v en ess a n d s ta tin g th a t if

th e c o u r t w o u ld g r a n t h im th e o p p o r tu n ity to b e b a c k w ith h is fa m i l y, he w ou l d n otdi sapp oi ntthe court . F i nal l y, the di stri ctcourtac kn ow l edged tha tT hom a s ha d s e ntal e tt e rt o the c our ta pol ogi z i ng forhi s c onduc t . T he go vernm entas se rt ed thata s ent ence atthe hi gh end o f the G ui del i nes r ange w as a p p r o p r ia te d u e to T h o m a s ’s r o le a s “th e r in g le a d e ro f th e e n tir e o p e r a tio n .” A ft erhear i ng the parti es ’ ar gu m ent , the di stri ctcourtcom pl i m ent ed T ho m as on hi s c ando r a nd , ov erthe go vernm ent ’ s r equestfor ahi gh -e nd se nt ence , i m po se d16

as e nt e nc e a tthe l ow e s te nd of the G ui de l i ne s r a nge , s t a t i ng tha tthe l ow - e nd s e nt e nc e “ a de qua t e l y a ddr e s s e s the s e r i ous na tur e of the of fe ns e s c om m i tt e d by thi s de fe nda nt . ” I n i m pos i ng s e nt e nc e , the c our ts t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the P S I, the advi sory G ui del i nes r ange, and t he fa ct ors of § 35 53 (a ). A ga i n, i n de t e r m i ni ng w he the ras e nt e nc e i s r e a s ona bl e , w e a r e gui de d by the fa c t or s i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t261; W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d a t1246. T he s e fa c t or s i nc l ude the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of fe ns e a nd the hi s t or y a nd c h a r a c te r is tic s o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; (2) the need for the se nt ence i m po se d-- (A ) t o ref

l ec tthe se ri ou snes s of the offens e, t o p rom ot e r es pect for the l aw , and t o p rovi de j ustpu ni shm entfor the offens e; ( B ) to a f fo r d a d e q u a te d e te r r e n c e to c r im in a l c o n d u c t; ( C ) to p r o te c t th e p u b lic f r o m f u r th e rc r im e s o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; a nd ( D ) t o pr ovi de the de fe nda ntw i th ne e de d e duc a t i ona l or vo ca t i on al tra i ni ng , m edi ca l care , or ot her c orre cti on al tre atm enti n the m ostef fe cti ve m anner; (3) the ki nd s of s ent ence s a vai l abl e;

. . . . ( 6) the ne e d t o a voi d unw a r r a nt e d s e nt e nc e di s pa r i t i e s a m ong defe nd ant s w i th si m i l arre cords w ho have been foun d g ui l t y of s i m i l ar c onduc t ; a nd (7) the need t o p rovi de re sti tut i on t o any vi cti m s of the offens e.17

1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . A lth o u g h s e n te n c in g c o u r ts m u s t b e g u id e d b y th e s e fa c to r s ,

“ no thi ng i n B oo ker or e l se w here re qu i re s the di stri ctcourtt o st at e on t he re cord tha ti tha s e xpl i c i t l y c ons i de r e d e a c h of the § 3553( a ) fa c t or s ort o di s c us s e a c h of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S cott , 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 29 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . R o b le s , 4 0 8 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( s ta tin g th a t, po st -B oo ker, di stri ctcourt s nee d n otcond uctan ac coun t i ng of ever y § 35 53 (a ) fa c to ra n d e x p o u n d o n h o w e a c h fa c to rp la y e d ar o le in th e s e n te n c in g d e c is io n ) . H e r e , w e r e a di l y c onc l ude tha tT hom a s ha s notm e thi s bur de n t o s how e r r or

“ i n the l i ghtof

both [ the ] r e c or d a nd the fa c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” T a l l e y , 431 F .3 d a t 7 8 8 . A t s e n te n c in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e a r d d e fe n s e c o u n s e l’s a r g u m e n t in su p p o rt o f m itig atio n an d T h o m as ’s statem en t o f r em o rs e, an d n o ted T h o m as ’s l e tt e rof a pol ogy t o the c our t . T he s e i t e m s a l l c onc e r ne d “ the na tur e a nd c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e o f fe n s e a n d th e h is to r y a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s o f th e d e fe n d a n t,” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , s in c e th e y p e r ta in e d to T h o m a s ’s fa m ily c ir c u m s ta n c e s , h is y o u th , h is d r in k in g p r o b le m s , a n d h is d e p o r ta tio n s itu a tio n . M or e ove r , i n i m pos i ng s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c tc our te xpr e s s l y m e nt i one d “ the s e r io u s n a tu r e o f

th e o f fe n s e s c o m m itte d b y th is d e fe n d a n t.” S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( d is c u s s in g fa c to r s p e r ta in in g to “th e n e e d fo rth e s e n te n c e im p o s e d ,” in clu d in g “th e s er io u sn es s o f th e o ffen se ”) . T h e p ar ti es ’ arg u m en ts an d th e P S I’s18

c a l c ul a t i ons out l i ne d “ the ki nds of s e nt e nc e s a va i l a bl e , ” i d. a t§ 3553( a ) ( 3) , a nd T hom a s r e c e i ve d al ow - e nd s e nt e nc e tha tw a s j us tove rone - ha l f the l e ngth of

the 20- y e a rs t a tut or y m a xi m um . C f . M a r t i ne z , 434 F . 3d a t1322- 33 ( c onduc t i ng re as on abl enes s r evi ew and speci fi ca l l y not i ng thatthe se nt ence w as “ al m oston ethi r d the l e ngth of

the t w e nt y - y e a rs t a tut or y m a xi m um s e nt e nc e ” ) ; W i ni nge a r , 422 F .3 d at 1 2 4 6 (r ev iew in g re as o n ab len es s o f s en ten ce an d n o ti n g th at d efen d an t’ s s e nt e nc e w a s “ one - t e nth the l e ngth of the t w e nt y - y e a rs t a tut or y m a xi m um s e n te n c e ” ) . A s forT hom a s ’ s a r gum e ntc onc e r ni ng s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i e s a m ong de fe nda nt s , 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 6) , w e a r e har d- pr e s s e d t o f i nd tha ti m pos i ng a l on ger s ent ence on T ho m as , w hen com pare d t o h i s c o-conspi ra t ors, w as unr e a s ona bl e . T hom a s a l one c oor di na t e d the r obbe r y dur i ng hi s c ont a c t s w i th the unde r c ove ra ge nt . H i s c oor di na t i on e f for t s i nc l ude d ( 1) de t e r m i ni ng the m a nne rby w hi ch the cr i m e w ou l d b e c om m i tt ed and t he l evel of vi ol ence nece ss ar y t o carry ou tthe cr i m e; (2) r ec rui t i ng the ot her def endant s t o p ar t i ci pat e i n a sc hem e t o st ea l c o c a in e f r o m C o lo m b ia n d r u g tr a f f ic k e r s ; a n d ( 3 ) o b ta in in g fo u rf ir e a r m s in f ur the r a nc e of

the c r i m e . W e c onc l ude i tw a s w e l l w i thi n the bounds of re as on abl enes s for the di stri ctcourtt o fi nd thatT ho m as w as an organi ze r or l ea der19

of the conspi ra cy t o o bstructcom m er ce by robb er y, and t here fore t o i m po se a l en g th i er sen t en ce o n h i m th an o n th e o th ers. In sum , the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c al cul at ed the G ui del i nes r ange, c ons i de r e d the G ui de l i ne s a dvi s or y , a de qua t e l y t ook i nt o a c c ountthe fa c t or s i n 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , and i m po se d a se nt ence thatw as atthe l ow end o f the G ui del i nes r a n g e a n d w a s s ig n if

ic a n tly le s s th a t th e 2 0 - y e a rs ta tu to r y m a x im u m T h o m a s fa c e d . A c c or di ngl y , T hom a s ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s r e a s ona bl e i n l i ghtof the r e c or d a nd the fa ct ors of § 35 53 (a ). AF F I RME D.