### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 18, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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- 12107 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 0 1 - CR- FTM - 2 9 - SPC 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 O S E M A N U E L G O N Z A L 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 18, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:This total sentencerepresents the guidelines calculation wi th respect to Count 1 and the 1 mandatory

60-month consecutive sentenc e with re spect to Count 2. (See R3 at 12, 15; R1-90 a t 2). 2 Jose M anuel G on za l ez appeal s hi s t ot al 93 -m on th se nt ence , i m po se d aft er 1 he pl e d gui l ty t o one c ountof c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tr obbe ry a nd one c ountof ca rryi ng a f

i re arm du ri ng a c ri m e of vi ol ence , vi ol at i on s of 18 U . S . C . §§ 19 51 (a ) a nd 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) , r e s pe c t i ve l y . O n appe a l , he a r gue s tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o a tw o-l evel m i no r r ol e r educt i on pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2. F or the re as on s s et f o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. G o n z a le z p le d g u ilty b e f o r e a m a g is tr a te to th e ab o v e - r e f e r e n c e d o f

f e n s e s . A c c or di ng t o the undi s put e d f a c t s i n the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( P S I ) , the of f e ns e c onduc tbe ga n a r ound A ugus t25, 2004, w he n a n unde r c ove rA T F a ge nt t ol d R enat o L ebron thathe w as a di sgrunt l ed couri erfor aC ol om bi an narcot i cs tr a f f i c ki ng or ga ni z a t i on l ooki ng f ora hom e - i nva s i on c r e w c apabl e of r obbi ng a n a r c o tic s s ta s h h o u s e , a n d th a t th e a g e n t c o u ld m e e t w ith L e b r o n in a f e w w e e k s to di s c us s the pl a n. O n S ept em ber 8, the agentm etw i th L ebron, and asked L ebron i f he w er e capabl e of r ob bi ng the C ol om bi ans’ st as h h ou se , t o w hi ch L ebron res po nd ed that he had d on e “ bi g j ob s” before. T he agentprov i ded d et ai l s t o L ebron, and i nform ed hi m of w he n the ne xtde l i ve ry w a s s c he dul e d t o a rr i ve . L e br on w a nt e d t o know the a ddr e s s of

the s t a s h hous e , butthe a ge nti ndi c a t e d tha tthe a ddr e s s w oul d notbe3

kn ow n u nt i l 30 m i nu t es before the sc hedu l ed pi ck up . L ebron t ol d the agentthat he ha d tw o a s s oc i a t e s w ho w oul d a s s i s thi m w i th the r obbe ry , a nd s t a t e d he ha d the pe opl e , the pi s t ol s , a nd e ve ry thi ng e l s e he ne e de d t o c om pl e t e the r obbe ry . L e br on and the agentagre ed t o spl i tthe proceeds of the robb ery, and L ebron i nd i ca t ed that hi s pl a n w a s t o e nt e rthe s t a s h hous e be hi nd the a ge nt , othe rw i s e the y w oul d ha ve to e n te ra s im p e r s o n a tin g p o lic e o f f ic e r s . L es s than a w ee k l at er , a C I i nform ed A T F agent s thatL ebron h ad re crui t ed f o u ri n d i v i d u a l s t o a s s i s th i m wi th th e r o b b e ry , a n d r e p o r t e d th a tL e b r o n h a d two ni ne - m i l l i m e t e rpi s t ol s w i th s i l e nc e r s , a m a c hi ne pi s t ol w i th s i l e nc e r , a bul l e tpr oof v e s t a n d m a s k s , a n d a p o lic e in te r c e p to r , w h ic h w a s to b e u s e d a s th e g e ta w a y c a r . L at er, th e C I i n fo rm ed ag en t s th atL eb ro n h ad i n d i cat ed th atfi rearm s, si l en cers, and v es t s w ou l d b e use d b y the four i nd i vi du al s c on du ct i ng the robb ery, and that L e b r o n h a d n o in te n tio n o f s h a r in g th e p r o c e e d s . O n O c to b e r6 , th e a g e n t m e t w ith L e b r o n , w h o in d ic a te d th a t c o c a in e w o u ld b e a rr iv in g o n O c to b e r8 . L e b r o n s ta te d th a t h is c r e w w o u ld b e a rm e d , a n d th a t h is pl a n w a s t o i nf

i l tr a t e the s t a s h hous e a s the a ge ntw a s e xi t i ng. D ur i ng the m e e t i ng, M ar gari t o C ruz S anchez arr i ved and gree t ed L ebron and the agent , w ho , af t er re ce i vi ng L ebron’ s app roval , t ol d S anchez and L ebron abo utthe un derc ov er s c e na r i o.4

O n O ct ob er8, survei l l ance agent s observed L ebron, B enj am i n G ut i erre z, G o n z a le z , a n d S a n c h e z a rr iv e a t ap e r s o n a l s to r a g e f a c ility in N ap le s , F lo r id a . S anchez w as dri vi ng a w hi t e C adi l l ac , w i th G on za l ez i n the fr on tpass enger s ea t a nd L e br on a nd G ut i e rr e z i n the ba c ks e a t . G onz a l e z r e m a i ne d i n the c a rw hi l e the othe rthr e e pa s s e nge r s e xi t e d. T he a ge ntthe n a rr i ve d a nd ope ne d the dr i ve r ’ s s i de d o o r , c o m m u n ic a tin g to a ll o f th e in d iv id u a ls , in c lu d in g G o n z a le z , th a t th e r e w o u ld be tw o i nd i vi du al s i n the st as h h ou se , on e of w ho m w as arm ed. G on za l ez w as se en n o d d in g h is h e a d in a n a f f irm a tiv e m a n n e rw h ile lis te n in g . L e b r o n e x p la in e d th a t, a s the a ge nte xi t e d the s t a s h hous e , he w oul d “ t i e up” the a ge nt , a tw hi c h poi nt G ut i e rr e z w oul d puta gun t o the a ge nt ’ s he a d a nd de m a nd tha the c om pl y . T he a ge nti ndi c a t e d tha tthe gua r ds a tthe s t a s h hous e w oul d l i ke l y s hootba c k i f L e br on o ram e m b e ro f

h is c r e w f

ir e d f ir s t. A s the agentbegan w al ki ng aw ay , l aw enforce m entarri ved o n the sc ene, arre st i ng L ebron, G ut i erre z, G on za l ez , and S anchez. A se ar ch of the C adi l l ac r e v e a le d alo a d e d .9 m m s e m i- a u to m a tic p is to l, a.3 8 0 c a lib e rs e m i- a u to m a tic pi st ol , and three part i cl e m as ks, as w el l as four l at ex gl ov es . A ft erbei ng advi se d of hi s r i ght s , L e br on s t a t e d tha the ha d di s c us s e d the pl a n w i th e a c h m e m be rof the c ons pi r a c y , a nd s t a t e d tha te a c h pe r s on ha d a n a s s i gne d j ob, G onz a l e z ’ s t a s k be i ng t o st ayw i th the get aw ayca r. G on za l ez , i n a po st -a rr es tst at em ent , di sc l osed that5

L e b r o n h a d a s k e d h im , o n O c to b e r7 , if h e w a n te d to d r iv e a n d m a k e s o m e m o n e y . O n O c t obe r8, G onz a l e z w e ntt o L e br on’ s hom e , m e tw i th L e br on, G ut i e rr e z , a nd S a nc he z , a nd the y dr ove t o ac onve ni e nc e s t or e , w he r e G onz a l e z not i c e d the guns i n the ca r. A t h is p le ac o llo q u y , G o n z a le z a d m itte d th a t h e k n e w th a t th e r e w a s g o in g to be a r ob bery . H e r ec al l ed se ei ng the gu ns i n the ca r app roxi m at el y f i ve m i nu t es be f or e a rr i vi ng a tthe s t or a ge f a c i l i ty , a nd tha tthe guns w e r e be hi nd the f r ont pa s s e nge r ’ s s e a t . G onz a l e z s t a t e d tha thi s j ob w a s t o dr i ve the ge t a w a y c a ra nd tha t , i ni t i a l l y , he di d notknow w ho orw ha tw a s goi ng t o be r obbe d. I tw a s not unt i l the y w e r e on the i rw a y t o the s t or a ge f a c i l i ty tha tG onz a l e z l e a rne d tha tdrugs w e r e the t a r ge tof

the r obbe ry . G onz a l e z s t a t e d tha the w a s ne ve rs uppos e d t o go to th e r e s id e n c e o rth e p la c e w h e r e th e r o b b e ry w a s to ta k e p la c e , a n d th a t h is o n ly j ob w as t o d ri ve the other defe nd ant s t o a pl ac e, drop them off, and then p i ck them up . F or hi s part , G on za l ez w as supp osed t o rec ei ve $5 , 00 0. F i nal l y, G on za l ez s ta te d th a t h e b e lie v e d th e g u n s in th e c a rw e r e g o in g to b e u s e d in th e r o b b e ry . T h e d i stri ctco u rtaccep t ed G o n zal ez’ s p l ea as k n o w i n g an d v o l u n t ary. T he P S I di d n otgrou p C ou nt1 (robb ery) w i th C ou nt2 (ca rryi ng a f i re arm du ri ng a c ri m e of vi ol ence ) t o avo i d d ou bl e c ou nt i ng and, because C ou nt2 carri ed as t a tut or i l y m a nda t e d c ons e c ut i ve s e nt e nc e , onl y c a l c ul a t e d a gui de l i ne r a nge f or6

th e ro b b ery ch arg e. A s t o th e ro b b ery co u n t , th e P S I setG o n zal ez’ s b ase o ffen se l e ve l a t20, pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2B 3. 1( a ) . G onz a l e z ’ s of f e ns e l e ve l w a s not e nha nc e d f

orthe pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a rm be c a us e of

the s e pa r a t e f

i r e a rm c ha r ge unde r18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) , buta one - l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntw a s a dde d be c a us e the ta k in g o f c o c a in e w a s th e o b

je c t o f th e o f f e n s e , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 B 3 .1 ( b ) ( 6 ) . T he P S I ne xtde t e rm i ne d tha tG onz a l e z ’ s r ol e i n the of f e ns e w a s tha tof

a n “ a c t i ve a nd a ve r a ge pa r t i c i pa nt , ” a nd he w a s notgi ve n e i the ra n a ggr a va t i ng orm i t i ga t i ng r ol e a dj us tm e nt . G onz a l e z w a s the n c r e di t e d w i th athr e e - l e ve l r e duc t i on f or a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty unde r§ 3E 1. 1 f ora t ot a l of

f e ns e l e ve l of

18. W i th no cr i m i nal hi st ory, G on za l ez w as a c at egory I , w hi ch, atoffe nse l evel 18 , prov i ded f ora n a dvi s ory s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 27- 33 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , w i th a m a nda t ory 60- m onth s e nt e nc e t o be i m pos e d c ons e c ut i ve l y f orC ount2. G onz a l e z l odge d onl y one obj e c t i on t o the P S I , a r gui ng tha the w a s a m i nor p a r t i c i p a n ti n th e o f

f e n s e a n d s h o u l d r e c e i v e a two - l e v e l r e d u c t i o n u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 3 B 1. 2(b). A tse nt enci ng , G on za l ez ar gu ed that(1) he w as subst ant i al l y y ou ng er th a n h is c o d e f

e n d a n ts ; ( 2 ) h is o n ly r o le w a s a s a d r iv e r , n o t a n a c tiv e p a r tic ip a n t in the r obbe ry i t s e l f

; a nd ( 3) hi s r ol e w a s m i norc om pa r e d t o othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s , l i ke G ut i e rr e z , w ho w a s i nvol ve d i n ne got i a t i ons a nd w a s t o a c t i ve l y pa r t i c i pa t e i n the r o b b e ry b y h o ld in g a g u n to th e a g e n t’s h e a d .7

T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t ru le d a g a in s t G o n z a le z , f in d in g th a t: C ert ai nl y, M r. G on za l ez ’ s r ol e i s di ff er entthan the other three pa r t i c i pa nt s ; butI a gr e e . . . tha ti tw a s both a c t i ve a nd i nt e gr a l t o the succ es s. H e w as go i ng t o b e the get aw aydri ver, and I do n’ tse e that r ol e be i ng . . . s ubs t a nt i a l l y di f f e r e nttha n the r ol e s of

M r . S a nc he z a nd M r. G ut i erre z. M r. L ebron i s adi ff er entsi tuat i on , bu t. . . the C ou rt fi nd s thatthe defendantshou l d n otbe ent i t l ed t o a m i no r r ol e. T hu s, the courtov errul ed G on za l ez ’ s obj ec t i on s a nd adop t ed the fa ctual fi n d i n g s an d ap p l i cat i o n o f th e g u i d el i n es as setfo rth i n th e P S I. B ased o n th o se fi nd i ng s, i tfoun d G on za l ez ’ s t ot al offe nse l evel t o b e 18, hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory c a te g o ry to b e I , w ith a r e s u ltin g r a n g e o f 2 7 to 3 3 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t a s to C o u n t 1 , a n d a n a d d itio n a l 6 0 - m o n th c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e r e q u ir e d f o rC o u n t 2 . A f te rh e a r in g f

r o m b o th G o n z a le z a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t a s to a n ap p r o p r ia te s e nt e nc e f

orC ount1, the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d hi m t o 33 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt t o be f ol l ow e d by a 60- m onth c ons e c ut i ve s e nt e nc e on C ount2, f ora r e s ul t i ng s e n te n c e o f

9 3 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. O n app ea l , G on za l ez ar gu es thathe w as l es s c ul pabl e than m ostof the other part i ci pant s bec ause the ent i re offe nse w as arra ng ed, pl anned, and d i sc usse d am on g l aw enforce m entand the other part i ci pant s, no tG on za l ez . H e a rgues that h e h a d n o r o le in th e d e c is io n - m a k in g p r o c e s s , w a s to lds o le ly to s ta y in th e v e h ic le an d serv e as a g et aw ay d ri v er, an d o n l y j o i n ed th e co n sp i racy atth e v ery l ast m om entw hen t ol d h e c ou l d m ake s om e m on eyby dri vi ng . G on za l ez ar gu es that8

he w a s m a de a w a r e of

the ba s i c c om pone nt s of the of f e ns e j us tpr i ort o be i ng a rr e s t e d, a nd tha tr e qui r i ng hi m t o e s t abl i s h m or e t o qua l i f y f orthe r e duc t i on w oul d m i s i nt e rpr e tthe gui de l i ne a nd i t s purpos e . H e a r gue s tha t , e ve n though the g u i d el i n es are n o l o n g er b i n d i n g , th e p ro p er rem ed y w o u l d b e a rem an d b ecau se th e g u id e lin e s w e r e in c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te d .

“ [A ] d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n o f a d efen d an t ’ s ro l e i n th e o ffen se i s a qu es t i on of fa ctt o b e r evi ew ed un der the cl ea rl y e rr on eous st andard. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) . U n d e rU .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 ( b ) , ad e f e n d a n t q u a lif

ie s f o ra tw o - le v e l r e d u c tio n to h is o f f e n s e le v e l if

h e w a s a m in o rp a r tic ip a n t in th e o f f e n s e . U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 ( b ) . T he gu i del i nes f

urther defi ne a m i no r part i ci pantas on e “ w ho i s l es s c ul pabl e than m o s t o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts , b u t w h o s e r o le c o u ld n o t b e d e s c r ib e d a s m in im a l.” I d ., c o m m e n t. ( n .5 ) . A s w e c la r if

ie d in D e V a r o n , w h e n d e te rm in in g w h e th e ra m in o r - r o le r e duc t i on i s w a rr a nt e d, a di s tr i c tc our ts houl d c ons i de r( 1) w he the rthe de f e nda nt p la y e d am in o rr o le in r e la tio n to th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h h e w a s h e ld ac coun t abl e a nd (2) w here approp ri at e, the cul pabi l i ty of the defendantas m e a s ur e d a ga i ns ttha tof othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s i n the r e l e va ntc onduc t . D e V a r on, 175 F .3 d a t 9 4 0 , 9 4 4 . “[ T ]h e c o n s p ir a c y o n w h ic h a d e f e n d a n t’s b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l is9

f ounde d i s the r e l e va ntc ons pi r a c y f orde t e rm i ni ng r ol e i n the of f e ns e . ” I d. a t942 ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ [ T ] he di s tr i c tj udge i s i n the be s tpos i t i on t o w e i gh a nd a s s e s s both the de f

e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n he rr e l e va ntc onduc ta nd the r e l a t i ve de gr e e s of cul pabi l i ty of the other part i ci pant s i n thatcond uct . Int ense l y f ac tual i nq ui ri es such as these ar e properl y c on si gn ed t o the experi ence d d i sc re t i on of the di stri ct j udge . ” I d. a t939. W e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rrby denyi ng G on za l ez a m i no r- rol e r educt i on . T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatG on za l ez ’ s r ol e a s aget aw ay dr i ve r , w hi l e di f

f e r e ntf r om the othe rc ode f

e nda nt s , w a s s t i l l a n i nt e gr a l t o the s uc c e s s of

the pr os pe c t i ve c r i m i na l c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tr obbe ry . T he r e l e va nt c onduc tf

orw hi c h he w a s he l d a c c ount abl e w a s f orr obbe ry a nd ha vi ng the o b je c tiv e o f

ta k in g a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . O n ly b e c a u s e G o n z a le z w a s s e p a r a te ly c ha r ge d a nd s e nt e nc e d f ora i di ng a nd abe tt i ng the c a rry i ng of a f i r e a rm dur i ng a v i o l e n tc r i m e d i d h e a v o i d f u r th e ra c c o u n t ab i l i ty f

o ri tp u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 B 3. 1(b)(2)(C). H ow ever , the fa ct s i n the re cord i nd i ca t e thatG on za l ez w as aw ar e thata r ob beryw as go i ng t o t ake pl ac e, aw ar e thatthere w er e gun s thatw er e l i ke l y t o be us e d dur i ng the c om m i s s i on of the r obbe ry , a w a r e tha tdrugs w e r e the obj ec tof the cr i m e, and w as po i se d t o earn $ 5, 00 0 for dri vi ng the get aw ayca r a ft er th e c o m m is s io n o f

th e c r im e . I n d e e d , th e P S I r e f le c ts th a t G o n z a le z n o d d e d h is10

h e a d a f f irm a tiv e ly w h ile th e u n d e r c o v e ra g e n t g a v e in s tru c tio n s to c o d e f e n d a n ts . W hi l e i ti s true thatG on za l ez ’ s r ol e w as no tt o p er sonal l y c arrya w eapo n o r, i n al i t e r a l s e ns e , c om m i tthe a c tua l r obbe ry by e nt e r i ng the pr e m i s e s a nd s t e a l i ng c oc a i ne , hi s r ol e i n e ns ur i ng tha tthe r obbe ry w a s s uc c e s s f ul , i . e . , by ge tt i ng hi m s e l f a nd hi s c ode f

e nda nt s qui c kl y a nd s a f e l y a w a y f

r om the s c e ne f

orthe s um o f $ 5 ,0 0 0 , m a d e h im a s in te g r a l a n d a v e r a g e a p a r tic ip a n t a s o n e a c tu a lly c o m m ittin g th e r o b b e ry its e lf . C f . U n ite d S ta te s v . P in k n e y , 1 5 F .3 d 8 2 5 , 8 2 8 ( 9 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( pers uasi vel y not i ng that“ on e ki nd of aver age part i ci panti n a robb ery w ou l d b e the pers on w ho drov e the robb ert o the sc ene a nd then d rove hi m or her a w a y a g a in , a n d e x p e c te d a s h a r e o f th e lo o t.” ) . E ve n though i tha s be e n a r gue d tha tG onz a l e z ’ s r ol e , l i m i t e d a s i tw a s , m i ght b e w o r th y o f

a m in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n , w e h a v e h e ld th a t: I n the f i na l a na l y s i s , thi s de c i s i on f a l l s w i thi n the s ound di s c r e t i on of the tri al court . Indeed, w e a ckno w l edge thata s i m i l arfa ctpatt ern m ay o n o c c a s io n g iv e r is e to tw o r e a s o n ab le a n d d if f e r e n t c o n s tru c tio n s . T hi s i s i nh er enti n the fa ct -i nt ensi ve i nq ui ryspec i fi ca l l y c on t em pl at ed by the G ui del i nes. A s the S up re m e C ou rthas r ec og ni ze d, a tri al c our t ’ s c hoi c e be tw e e n ‘ tw o pe rm i s s i bl e vi e w s of the e vi de nc e ’ i s the ve ry e s s e nc e of

the c l e a re rr ors t a nda r d of r e vi e w . S o l ong a s the basi s of the tri al court ’ s dec i si on i s s up po rt ed by the re cord and d oes noti nvol ve a m i s appl i c a t i on of a rul e of l a w , w e be l i e ve tha ti tw i l l be r a r e f o ra n ap p e lla te c o u r t to c o n c lu d e th a t th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t's d e te rm in a tio n is c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s . D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d a t 9 4 5 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) .11

B as ed on the foregoi ng , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng that G onz a l e z ’ s r ol e w a s i nt e gr a l t o the s uc c e s s of the c r i m i na l c ons pi r a c y a nd, th e r e f o r e , n o t s u b s ta n tia lly d if f e r e n t f r o m th e r o le s o f

S a n c h e z a n d G u tie rr e z , is a mp l y s u p p o r t e db y th e r e c o r d a n d i s n o tc l e a r l y e rr o n e o u s . W e , th e r e f o r e , a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.