FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 28, 2008 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. 07- 12266 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 2 0 7 1 6 - C R - D MM 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 E D U A R D O M I G U E L M O L E , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 28, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E du ar do M i gu el M ol e ( “ M ol e” ) app ea l s hi s tw el ve-m on th-and-on e- day2

s e nt e nc e i m pos e d pur s ua ntt o a gui l ty pl e at o one c ountof c ons pi r a c y t o e va de c u rr e n c y r e p o r tin g r e q u ir e m e n ts . A f te rr e v ie w , w e a f

f irm . I . B AC KG RO UN D M ol e pl e d gui l ty t o c ons pi r a c y t o e va de c urr e nc y r e por t i ng r e qui r e m e nt s by c o n c e a l i n g mo r e th a n $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 i n U n i t e dSt a t e s c u rr e n c y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 3 1 U . S. C. § 5 33 2(a) , (b)( 1) and 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 71 . In hi s w ri tt en pl eaagre em ent , M ol e a gree d to f o r f e it a ll o f th e c u rr e n c y s e iz e d f

r o m h im . A c c o r d in g to th e P r e s e n te n c e I n v e s tig a tio n R e p o r t ( “P S I ” ) , M o le a n d h is gi r l f r i e nd, A nna O c a s i o, w e r e s t oppe d f ora r out i ne e xa m i na t i on by C us t om s a nd B order P rot ec t i on (“ C B P ”) O ff i ce rs atM i am i Int ernat i on al A i rportas they w er e l eav i n g fo r P an am a. M o l e t o l d C B P O ffi cers th ath e w as carrying $ 4 , 0 0 0 i n cash a nd i ndi c a t e d on a c us t om s f orm tha the w a s c a rry i ng $4, 000 a nd w a s not tr a ns por t i ng m or e tha n $10, 000. W he n a s ke d by C B P of f i c e r s t o pr e s e nta l l the m o n e y h e w a s c a rry in g , M o le p r o d u c e d $ 9 ,0 8 1 f r o m h is p e r s o n . C B P O f f i c e r s que s t i one d O c a s i o s e pa r a t e l y . O c a s i o t ol d the m tha ts he th o u g h t s h e w a s c a rry in g ab o u t $ 2 ,0 0 0 in c a s h a n d th a t th e m o n e y w a s h e r s . B e c a u s e s h e w a s n o t e x a c tly s u r e o f th e a m o u n t o f

m o n e y s h e w a s c a rry in g , O c a s io i ndi c a t e d on a c us t om s f orm tha ts he w a s c a rry i ng $3, 000 i n c a s h a nd w a s not c a rry i ng m or e tha n $10, 000. W he n C B P O f f i c e r s a s ke d O c a s i o t o pr e s e nta l l the3

m one y s he w a s c a rry i ng, s he r e tr i e ve d appr oxi m a t e l y $8, 000 f r om he rpe r s on. S he th e n to ld C B P O f

f ic e r s th a t th e m o n e y w a s M o le ’s . M ol e c on fi rm ed thatO ca si o w as ca rryi ng hi s m on eyand thathe had asked h e rto d o s o b e c a u s e h e d id n o t w a n t to h a v e to d e c la r e m o r e th a n $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 . A lth o u g h M o le s ta te d th e r e w a s n o a d d itio n a l c u rr e n c y in h is c a rry - o n lu g g a g e , a se ar ch o f th e lu g g ag e r ev ea led an ad d it io n al $ 3 6 ,0 0 0 . A se ar ch o f O ca sio ’s lu g g a g e r e tr ie v e d a n o th e r$ 2 7 ,0 0 0 . T h e to ta l a m o u n t o f m o n e y c a rr ie d b y M o le a n d O c a s io w a s $ 8 0 ,0 8 1 . M ol e s i gne d a s t a t e m e nti n w hi c h he a dm i tt e d ha vi ng $80, 000 i n c a s h on hi m . M ol e i nd i ca t ed thatthe ca sh w as l egi t i m at e m on eyfr om hi s busi ness and that h e h a d p la n n e d to u s e it to in v e s t in a c o n d o m in iu m in P a n a m a . T h e P S I cal cu l at ed a b ase o ffen se l ev el o f 1 4 b ased o n an i n i t i al o ffen se l ev el o f 6 , p u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 2 S 1 . 3 (a)(2 ), an d an ad d i t i o n al 8 l ev el s b ecau se the va l ue of

the f unds w a s m or e tha n $70, 000 butnotm or e tha n $120, 000, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1. 1(b)(1)(E). T he P S I app l i ed (1) atw o-l evel e n h a n c e m e n tf

o rth e o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g b u l k c a s h s m u g g l i n g , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 S 1 . 3 (b )(1 )(B ), an d (2 ) a th ree-l ev el red u ct i o n fo r accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty, pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1( a ) , ( b) , w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n a t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of

13. T h e P S I a ls o d e te rm in e d th a t M o le h a da c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry o f I .4

M ol e ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory r e f l e c t e d: ( 1) a 1997 s t a t e c our tc onvi c t i on f orthi r dde gr e e gr a nd the f

t ; ( 2) pr i orc onvi c t i ons f ora m uni c i pa l or di na nc e vi ol a t i on a nd d is o r d e r ly c o n d u c t in w h ic h a d ju d ic a tio n w a s w ith h e ld w ith f in e s a n d c o s ts in b o th ; ( 3 ) a rr e s ts f

o r( a ) d r iv in g u n d e rth e in f lu e n c e , ( b ) d e a lin g in s to le n p r o p e r ty a nd “ ve hi c l e a l t e rna t e I D /pos s e s s i on, ” a nd ( c ) r e s i s t i ng a n of f i c e r ; a nd ( 4) ni ne m i no r tra ff

i c c on vi ct i on s. B as ed on an offe nse l evel of 13 and a cri m i nal hi st ory cat eg o ry o f I, M o l e’ s ad v i so ry g u i d el i n es ran g e w as tw el v e t o ei g h t een m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t. B e f or e s e nt e nc i ng, M ol e f

i l e d a m ot i on s e e ki ng as e nt e nc e be l ow the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge be c a us e hi s of f e ns e w a s a vi c t i m l e s s c r i m e , hi s pr i or e nc ount e r s w i th the l a w w e r e m i nor , he ha d agood e m pl oy m e nthi s t ory , a nd he ha d m a de a m e nds by f

or f e i t i ng hi s l i f

e s a vi ngs a nd a c c e pt i ng r e s pons i bi l i ty f orthe cr i m e. A ts e nt e nc i ng, M ol e ’ s c ouns e l r a i s e d no obj e c t i ons t o the P S I ort o the gui de l i ne s c a l c ul a t i on. I n a ddr e s s i ng M ol e ’ s r e que s tf ora dow nw a r d s e nt e nc i ng vari ance , the di stri ctcourtst at ed, “ I w i l l t el l you I gu es s f rom the ou t se tthatw hat di s turbs m e abouty ourr e que s ti s the c r i m i na l hi s t ory . A nd s o t e l l m e w hy y ou bel i eve thatdespi t e thata s ent ence ou t si de of the advi soryra ng e i s app ropri at e. ” M ol e ’ s c ouns e l r e s ponde d tha tthi s w a s a vi c t i m l e s s r e gul a t ory c r i m e a nd tha tthe5

m on eyM ol e w as ca rryi ng w as “ l egi t i m at e, ho nestm on ey ” thatw as i nt ended for a le g itim a te p u rp o s e , n o t d ru g m o n e y , a s is u s u a lly th e c a s e in th e s e c r im e s . T he di s tr i c tj udge r e s ponde d, “ O f c our s e , i f

i tw e r e drug m one y the gui de l i ne s w oul d be va s t l y di f f e r e nt . I s n’ tthe r e a n i nc r e a s e i n the gui de l i ne s i f the m o n ey i s d ru g m o n ey? ” M o l e’ s co u n sel resp o n d ed , “ I d o n ’ tth i n k th ere i s a di st i nct i on , si r, ” butthe prosecut or st at ed, “ T he C ou rti s c orre ct . Itw ou l d b e a n enhancem enti f the m on eyw as tra ce abl e t o d rug p roce eds. ” T he prob at i on offi ce r al so st at ed, “ T hat ’ s c orre ct . ” M o le s p o k e o n h is o w n b e h a lf a n d r e q u e s te d le n ie n c y b e c a u s e , if im p r is o n e d , h e w o u ld lo s e h is b u s in e s s a n d h is e m p lo y e e s w o u ld lo s e th e irjo b s . B ef ore i m po si ng a s ent ence , the di stri ctcourtst at ed thati thad con si dere d the s t a t e m e nt s of

a l l the pa r t i e s , M ol e ’ s r e que s t , the P S I w hi c h c ont a i ne d the advi sorygu i del i nes, and the st atut ory f ac t ors. T he di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned that the l ow end o f the advi sorygu i del i nes provi ded a rea sonabl e s ent ence . T he di stri ct c o u r t s p e c if

ic a lly n o te d th a t “[ a ] f

a c to rth a t w e ig h s h e a v ily in th a t d e te rm in a tio n is th e c rim in al h isto ry .” T h e d istrict co u rt se n ten ce d M o le to 1 2 m o n th s a n d 1 d ay ’s im p r is o n m e n t a n d 2 y e a r s o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . W h e n a s k e d f

o ro b je c tio n s to th e c o u r t’s f

a c t f in d in g s o rth e m a n n e rin w hi ch the se nt ence w as pron ou nced, M ol e’ s c ou nsel re spon ded, “ N on e other than6

the r e que s tw e m a de t o the C our tpr e vi ous l y . ” M ol e t i m e l y appe a l e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r e vi e w the r e a s onabl e ne s s of a s e nt e nc e unde ra n abus e - of - di s c r e t i on s ta n d a r d . G a ll v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 5 2 U .S . ___ , ___ , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . U nr e a s onabl e ne s s m a y be pr oc e dur a l ors ubs t a nt i ve . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H unt , 459 F .3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 2 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . A s e n te n c e m a y b e p r o c e d u r a lly un re as on abl e i f the di stri ctcourtdo es no tfol l ow the re qu i re m ent s of U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), re gardl es s of the ac tual se nt ence i m p o sed . Id . F o r a sen t en ce t o b e p ro ced u ral l y reaso n ab l e, a d i stri ctco u rtm u st c o rr e c t l y c a l c u l a t e th e g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e a n d c o n s i d e rth e f a c t o r s i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3553( a ) i n de t e rm i ni ng a r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). “ [A ] n ackno w l edgm entby the di stri ctcourtthati thas c o n s id e r e d th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a r g u m e n ts a n d th e f a c to r s in s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) is suff i ci entun der B oo ker. ” I d. O nce w e det erm i ne thatthe se nt ence w as pr oc e dur a l l y r e a s onabl e , w e e va l ua t e the ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e ’ s s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s , c ons i de r i ng the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s . G a l l , 552 U . S . a t__, 128 S . C t . a t597. T he pa r ty c ha l l e ngi ng the s e nt e nc e be a r s the bur de n of s how i ng tha ta s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J ohns on, 485 F . 3d 1264, 1272 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) .7

O n ap p eal , M o l e arg u es th atth e sen t en ci n g j u d g e erred o n tw o g ro u n d s. F i rs t , M ol e c on t ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n n otst at i ng thati thad con si dere d a l l of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s i n s e nt e nc i ng. H ow e ve r , “ nothi ng i n B ooke ror e ls e w h e r e r e q u ir e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to s ta te o n th e r e c o r d th a t it h a s e x p lic itly consi dere d eac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors or t o d i sc uss e ac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T hom a s , 446 F . 3d 1348, 1357 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 426 F . 3d 1324, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ) . I ti s s uf f i c i e nti f the di stri ctcourtac kn ow l edges thati thas c on si dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. A m e de o, 487 F . 3d 823, 832- 33 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, ___ U . S . ___, 1 2 8 S . C t. 6 7 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t tw ic e s ta te d b e f o r e im p o s in g its s e n t e n c e th a ti th a d c o n s i d e r e d th e s t a tu t o ry f a c t o r s . T h u s , Mo l e h a s n o ts h o wn th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d o n th is p r o c e d u r a l g r o u n d . S e c ond, M ol e c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d hi m ba s e d on the e rr one ous vi e w tha thi s a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge w oul d ha ve be e n hi ghe ri f the m one y he w a s tr a ns por t i ng w a s drug m one y . M ol e c ont e nds tha tthi s w a s a n e rr or b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in c a lc u la tin g h is a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s r a n g e . H o w e v e r , th is d o e s n o t c o rr e c tly f

r a m e th e is s u e b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly c a lc u la te d h is a d v i s o ry g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e o f 1 2 t o 1 8 m o n th s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t , a n d Mo l e h a s s h o wn no error i n thatca l cul at i on . Inst ea d, atm ost , M ol e’ s c l ai m i s thatthe di stri ctcourtSection 2S1.3(b)(1) of the guidelines provides for a two-level enha

ncement “[i] f (A)the 1 defendant knew or

believed that the funds were proc eeds of unlawful activity , or were intende d to promote unlawful activity ; or (B ) the off ense involved bulk c ash smug g ling.”U.S.S.G. § 2S1 .3 (b )( 1) . ThePSI

had alre a dy

a pp lie d a tw o- leve l enh anc e ment u nder t hissu bs e c tio n in calculating Mole ’s guidelines rang e bec ause his off ense involved “bulk cash smug g ling.” Be causethis guidelines subsec tion is written in the disj unctive, it appea rs that Mole would not have rece ived an additional two-level enha ncement if the funds he w as ca rry ing w ereproce eds of unlawf ul activity or intended to promote unla wful ac tivity , such as activity involving illeg al dr ug s. 8 base d i t s dec i si on on w hether t o sent ence hi m bel ow the advi sorygu i del i nes r ange, in p a r t, o n a m is ta k e n b e lie f th a t h is g u id e lin e s r a n g e w o u ld h a v e b e e n h ig h e rif h is c urr e nc y w a s r e l a t e d t o drug a c t i vi ty . I n othe rw or ds , M ol e c ont e nds tha tthe d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o n s i d e r e d s o me th i n g th a tw a s n o tf a c tu a l l y tru e i n s e n t e n c i n g h i m. H ow ever , M ol e f

ai l ed t o rai se an obj ec t i on on thi s groun d w hen the di stri ct c our ts ol i c i t e d obj e c t i ons a f t e ri ti m pos e d i t s s e nt e nc e . T hus , w e r e vi e w thi s i s s ue f orpl a i n e rr ora nd w i l l r e ve r s e onl y i f “ ( 1) the r e i s a n e rr or ; ( 2) the e rr ori s pl a i n; ( 3) the e rr ora f

f e c t s the de f

e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s i n tha ti tw a s pr e j udi c i a l a nd n o t h a rm le s s ; a n d ( 4 ) th e e rr o rs e r io u s ly a f f e c ts th e f a irn e s s , in te g r ity o rp u b lic r e put a t i on of

a j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ng. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a nc e , 494 F . 3d 985, 993 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . In i t s bri ef

on appeal , the go vernm entconcedes thatM ol e’ s a dv i sory gui de l i ne s r a nge w oul d notha ve be e n hi ghe ri f the m one y M ol e w a s tr a ns por t i ng w as drug m on ey . E ven ass um i ng thatthe m i st aken bel i ef abou tthe gu i del i nes 1 r a n g e f o rd ru g a c t i v i ty r o s e t o th e l e v e l o f e rr o rth a twa s p l a i n , Mo l e h a s n o ts h o wnAlthough w e conc lude that plain er ror review should a

pply to this procedural issue, we 2 note that we w ould reach the same re sult if we were to apply an abuse -of- discretion standa rd of review. 9 thati taf fe ct ed hi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. T he re cord ref l ec t s thatthe di stri ctcourt d en ied M o le’s m o ti o n fo r a se n ten ce v ar ian ce b as ed o n it s c o n ce rn s a b o u t M o le’s c r i m i na l hi s t ory , noti t s i nc orr e c ta s s um pt i on aboutthe gui de l i ne s r a nge f ordrug ac t i vi ty. B ef

ore hear i ng M ol e’ s a rgum enton hi s m ot i on for ase nt ence vari ance , the di stri ctcourtst at ed that“ w hatdi sturbs m e abo utyour re qu es ti s the cr i m i nal hi st ory. ” I n d et erm i ni ng thata s ent ence atthe bo tt om of the advi sorygu i del i nes r a nge w a s a r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c tc our tnot e d tha t“ [ a ] f a c t ortha tw e i ghs heavi l y i n thatdet erm i nat i on i s the cr i m i nal hi st ory. ” T hu s, the di stri ctcourt de ni e d the m ot i on f

ora s e nt e nc i ng va r i a nc e ba s e d on a§ 3553( a ) f a c t or– “ the h is to ry a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s o f th e d e f e n d a n t,” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) –n o t its as sum pt i on abou tthe gu i del i nes r ange for drug act i vi ty. F urtherm ore, the di stri ct c our te xpl i c i t l y s t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the s t a t e m e nt s of the pa r t i e s a nd M o le’s re q u es t fo r a se n ten cin g v ar ian ce , w h ich n ec es sa rily in clu d ed M o le’s ar gu m entthathi s m on eyw as fr om a l egi t i m at e s ou rc e a nd w as i nt ended t o b e use d for al egi t i m at e purpo se . In l i gh tof these consi dera t i on s, M ol e has no tshow n that thi s proce du ra l error c on st i tut ed re vers i bl e pl ai n err or. 2 AF F I RME D.