FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JANUARY 10, 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- 11565 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 2 0 7 1 3 - CR- PCH 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 J A V I E R H E RN A N D E Z R O D R I G U E Z , 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 10, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Javi erH ernand ez -R od ri gu ez appeal s hi s 142 -m on th sent ence , i m po se d aft er2

he pl e d gui l ty t o 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 ki l ogr a m s or mo r e o f c o c a i n e w h i l e o n b o a r d amo t o rv e s s e l , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 4 6 U . S. C. § 7 0 5 0 6 ( b ) , a n d th e u n d e r l y i n g s u b s t a n t i v e o f f e n s e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

4 6 U . S. C. § 7 05 03 (a ). H ernand ez -R od ri gu ez ra i se s tw o i ss ues on app ea l . F i rs t , he ar gu es th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g h im am itig a tin g - r o le r e d u c tio n p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 . S e c o n d , h e a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile d to a d e q u a te ly c o n s id e rth e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . I . M i t i gat i n g- r ol e R e d u c t i on T h e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es p erm i ta co u rtt o d ecrease a d efen d an t ’ s o ffen se l e ve l by tw o poi nt s i f

i tf i nds tha tthe de f

e nda ntw a s a“ m i norpa rt i c i pa nt ” i n the c r im in a l a c tiv ity . U .S .S .G § 3 B 1 .2 ( b ) . A d e f e n d a n t is am in o rp a rtic ip a n t if h e is

“ l es s c ul pabl e than m ostother part i ci pant s, bu thi s r ol e c ou l d n otbe desc ri bed as m in im a l.” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 c m t. n .5 . W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of w hether adefe nd antqu al i fi es f o ram itig a tin g - r o le r e d u c tio n f o rc le a re rr o r . U

ni ted Stat es v. B oyd , 291 F . 3d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T he pr opone ntof

the r e duc t i on a l w a y s be a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng e n title m e n t to th e r e d u c tio n b y ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . U

ni ted Stat es v. D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d 93 0, 93 9 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc). In det erm i ni ng w hether a3

m i t i ga t i ng- r ol e r e duc t i on i s w a rr a nt e d, adi s tr i c tc ourts houl d c ons i de r( 1) “ the d e f e n d a n t’s r o le in th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h [ h e ] h a s b e e n h e ld a c c o u n tab le atsen t en ci n g , ” an d (2 ) h i s ro l e “ as co m p aredt o th ato f o th er p art i ci p an t s i n [h i s] re l evantcond uct . ” I

d. a t940. I n drug- c our i e rc a s e s , “ e xa m pl e s of s om e r e l e va nt f a c tua l c ons i de r a t i ons i nc l ude : a m ountof drugs , f a i rm a rke tva l ue of

drugs , a m ount of m one y t o be pa i d t o the c our i e r , e qui tyi nt e r e s ti n the drugs , r ol e i n pl a nni ng the cr i m i nal sc hem e, and rol e i n the di stri bu t i on . ” I d. at94 5. “ S o l on g as the di stri ct c ourt ’ s c onc l us i on a s t o de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n the of

f e ns e i s s upport e d bythe r e c or d, a n d th e c o u rth a s r e s o l v e d a n y d i s p u t e d f a c tu a l i s s u e s i n c o n f

o rmi tyw i th Fe d . R. C r im . P . 3 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) , as im p le s ta te m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s c o n c lu s io n is suff i ci ent . ” I d. a t 9 4 7 . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of H ernand ez -R od ri gu ez ’ s r equestfor a m itig a tin g - r o le r e d u c tio n w a s n o t c le a r lye rr o n e o u s , a s th e c o u rt a d e q u a te ly c o n s id e r e d H e rn a n d e z - R o d r ig u e z ’s r o le in th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t, a s w e ll a s h is r o le as com pare d t o thatof other part i ci pant s. T he di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned that H e rn a n d e z - R o d r ig u e z w a s “a t le a s t a s c u lp ab le a s h is c o d e f e n d a n t h e r e a n d h is othe rc r e w m e m be r s . ” I ta l s o t ook i nt o a c c ountthe s ubs t a nt i a l a m ountof drugs i nvol ve d, 8, 833 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne , a nd i t s va l ue , about$160, 000, 000. I n the end, H ernand ez -R od ri gu ez fa i l ed t o m ee thi s burden o f s ho w i ng thathe w as4

e nt i t l e d t o am i t i ga t i ng- r ol e r e duc t i on by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e , a nd, th e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin d e n y in g h im th e r e d u c tio n . II. R ea so n a b l en ess H ernand ez -R od ri gu ez ar gu es for the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l thathi s s ent ence w a s unr e a s onabl e be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o a de qua t e l yc ons i de rthe 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . H e a s s e rt s tha thi s l a c k of know l e dge r e ga r di ng the drug v e n tu r e a n d h is d if

f ic u lt u p b r in g in g a n d f

a m ilyr e s p o n s ib ilitie s w e r e n o t p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. T he di s tr i c tc ourtm us tc ons i de rthe f ol l ow i ng § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s t o de t e rm i ne a r ea sonabl e s ent ence : ( 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 a nd the hi s t orya nd ch aract eri st i cs o f th e d efen d an t ; (2 ) th e n eed t o refl ectth e seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se, t o p ro m o t e resp ectfo r th e l aw , an d t o p ro v i d e j u st p u n is h m e n t f

o rth e o f f e n s e ; ( 3 ) th e n e e d f

o rd e te rr e n c e ; ( 4 ) th e n e e d to prot ec tthe pu bl i c; (5) the need t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded e duc a t i ona l orvoc a t i ona l tr a i ni ng orm e di c a l c a r e ; ( 6) the ki nds of s e nt e nc e s a va i l abl e ; ( 7) the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge ; ( 8) pe rt i ne nt p o lic y s ta te m e n ts o f

th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n ; ( 9 ) th e n e e d to a voi d unw a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i e s ; a nd ( 10) the ne e d t o pr ovi de rest i tu t i o n t o v i ct i m s. U ni ted Stat es v. T

al ley , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ) ( c i t i ng 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) ). H ow ever , i n con si deri ng the gu i del i ne fa ct ors, the di stri ctcourt n e e d n o t d is c u s s e a c h o f th e m in d iv id u a lly . I

d. R a the r , “ a n a c know l e dgm e ntby th e d is tr ic t c o u rt th a t it h a s 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 in5

se ct i on 35 53 (a ) i s s uffi ci entun der B o o ker. ” I d. “[ T ]h e r e is ar a n g e o f r e a s o n ab le s e nt e nc e s f

r om w hi c h the di s tr i c tc ourtm a yc hoos e ” a nd the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng thatthe se nt ence i s unrea sonabl e i n l i gh tof the re cord and the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors lie s w ith th e p artyc h a lle n g in g th e s e n te n c e . I d. a t788. F urthe rm or e , “ [ t ] he w e i ght t o be a c c or de d a ny gi ve n § 3553( a ) f a c t ori s am a tt e rc om m i tt e d t o the s ound d is c r e tio n o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt[ ,] a n d [ w ]e w ill n o t s u b s titu te o u rju d g m e n t in w ei gh i ng the re l evantfa ct ors. ” U ni ted States v. A m edeo , 4 8 7 F .3 d 8 2 3 , 8 3 2 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 76 U . S . L . W . 32 75 (U . S . N ov . 26 , 20 07 ) ( N o. 07 -696 8) (i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . L a s tly , a lth o u g h w e d o n o t c o n s id e ras e n te n c e w ith in the gu i del i ne rang e t o b e p er se r e a s o n ab le , u s e o f th e g u id e lin e s r e m a in s c e n tr a l to the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e s s , a nd w e w i l l or di na r i l ye xpe c taw i thi n- r a nge s e nt e nc e t o be r e a s o n ab le . T

al ley , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 7 - 8 8 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyc a lc u la te d th e g u id e lin e r a n g e a n d a d e q u a te ly c ons i de r e d the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . I n part i c ul a r , the c ourtw e i ghe d the s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e c r im e , a s w e ll a s th e n e e d to p u n is h a n d d e te r . I t u ltim a te ly i m p o s e d as e n t e n c e i n th e l o we r - m i d d l e o f th e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c onc l ude tha tH e rna nde z - R odr i gue z ’ s 142- m onth s e nt e nc e i s r e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . AF F I RME D.