FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 21, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL 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- 16832 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -006 30 -C R -1-W B H -1 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 A N G E L H E R R E R A H E RN A N D E Z , a .k .a . J u s tin o G o n z a le s , a .k .a . B a lta z a rG a r c iaD e L o s S a n to s , 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 o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 21, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Section 1326(b)( 2) provides f or a twenty-year

statutory maxi mum penalty

for a n alien 1 who had previously

been deported after c onviction for an ag gravated fe lony . 2 A nge l H e rr e r aH e rna nde z appe a l s hi s 80- m onth s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng h is g u iltyp le af

o rille g a l r e - e n try , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) . W e a f f i rm th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s s e n t e n c e f o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf

o rth b e l o w. I. H e rn a n d e z w a s i n d i c t e d f o ri l l e g a l r e - e n try , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) . T h e in d ic tm e n t n o te d th a t h e p r e v io u s lyh a d b e e n d e p o rte d in 1 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 9 3 , 1 9 9 6 , 1 9 9 9 , a n d 2 0 0 2 . H e rn a n d e z a g r e e d to p le a d g u iltyw ith o u t a w r i tt e n pl e aa gr e e m e nt . A tthe c ha nge - of - pl e ahe a r i ng, H e rna nde z a dm i tt e d tha the h ad p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s fo r g ran d th eft , co n tro l l ed su b st an ce o ffen ses, an d ro b b ery, a nd ha d be e n de port e d f i ve t i m e s be tw e e n 1992 a nd 2002. T he pr e - s e nt e nc i ng i nve s t i ga t i on r e port( “ P S I ” ) l i s t e d aba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of 8 unde rU . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( a ) , w i th a16- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntbe c aus e the pr i or conv i ct i on i nv ol ved a vi ol entcr i m e, U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2(b)(1)(A )( i i ), and a 3-l evel r e d u c tio n f

o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility . T h e to ta l a d ju s te d o f f e n s e le v e l w a s 2 1 . H ern an d ez’ s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s i n cl u d ed g ran d th eft , co n tro l l edsu b st an ce o ffen ses, a n d r o b b e ryin th e s e c o n d d e g r e e , w h ic h in v o lv e d ag u n . T h is h is to ryr e s u lte d in 12 cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s, bu ttw o p oi nt s w er e a dd ed un der U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1(e) b ec au se th e in stan t o ff

en se w as co m m itted w ith in tw o ye ar s a fterH ern an d ez ’s3

re leas e f ro m cu sto d y f

o r th e r o b b ery s en ten ce . W ith 1 4 p o in ts, H ern an d ez ’s c r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e goryw a s V I , a nd the r e s ul t i ng gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 77 t o 96 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. H e rn a n d e z d idn o t f ile a n yo b

je c tio n s to th e P S I . A tse nt enci ng , H ernand ez obj ec t ed, i nt eral i a, that : (1) he s ho ul d rec ei ve a do w nw ar d d eparture i n h i s c ri m i nal hi st ory; (2) e nh anci ng bo th h i s c ri m i nal hi st ory a nd hi s of

f e ns e l e ve l ba s e d on pr i orc onvi c t i ons r e s ul t e d i n doubl e c ount i ng; ( 3) the 16 -l evel enhancem entw as i m prop erbecause i tre sul t ed i n d i spar i t i es i n sent ence s and p un i shed al l vi ol entcr i m es the sa m e w ay ; and (4) he w as deni ed the fa st -tra ck pr ogr a m tha tw oul d ha ve de c r e a s e d hi s of f e ns e l e ve l . A f

t e rc ons i de r a t i on, the c ourtr e duc e d H e rna nde z ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e goryt o V , ba s e d on an obj e c t i on notr e l e va ntt o the i ns t a ntappe a l , butove rrul e d the r e m a i ni ng obj e c t i ons . T he c o u rt n o te d th a t th e p r io rr o b b e ryc o n v ic tio n in v o lv e d ag u n ( w h ic h w a s u s e d to b ea t up th e v icti m ), m ak in g ita s er io u s v io len t crim e. B as ed o n th e c o u rt’s fi nd i ng s, the adj ust ed offens e l evel w as 21 , and the cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory w as V , re sul t i ng i n a gu i del i nes r ange of 70 t o 8 7 m on ths i m pri sonm ent . A ft er c ons i de r i ng the s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s of 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) a nd the s e r i ous ne s s of the offens es , as w el l as the fi ve previ ou s deport at i on s, the courti m po se d a se nt ence of 80- m onths i m pr i s onm e nt . T he c ourtf ound thi s s e nt e nc e r e a s onabl e a nd u n l i k el y t o p ro d u ce an y d i sp ari ty. H ern an d ez n o w ap p eal s.United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 2 4 II . C o n s titu tio n a l is s u e s r a is e d b e lo w a r e s u b je c t to d e n o v o r e v ie w , a n d th is c o u rt w ill r e v e r s e o n lyf o rh a rm f u l e rr o r . U

ni te d State s v . P az , 405 F . 3d 946, 948 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W ith r e s p e c t to H e rn an d e z ’s f in a l s e n te n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is st i l l req u i red t o co rrect l y cal cu l at e th e g u i d el i n es ran g e, an d th i s co u rtrev i ew s a d e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e f

o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . U

ni te d State s v . W

i ni nge ar , 422 F . 3d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . H e rn a n d e z b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . U ni ted Stat es v. T

al ley , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). F i r s t , H e rna nde z ’ s c l a i m tha tthe appl i c a t i on of the 16- l e ve l e nha nc e m e nt p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) v io la te d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts is w i thoutm e r i t . T hi s c ourtha s r e pe a t e dl yr e j e c t e d H e rna nde z ’ s obj e c t i ons t o the appl i c a t i on of

§ 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) be c aus e a n e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on apr i or c o n v ic tio n d o e s n o t r e p r e s e n t ac o n s titu tio n a l B oo ke r e rr o r . E . g. , U ni ted Stat es v. 2 M art i nez , 4 3 4 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . M o r e o v e r , b yn o t c h a lle n g in g h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s a t s e n te n c in g , H e rn a n d e z a d m itte d th e m . U ni ted Stat es v. Wi l l i a ms , 43 8 F . 3d 12 72 , 12 73 -74 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). S e c o n d , H e rn a n d e z ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e 1 6 - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t f o rh isHer nandez’s argument that enhanc ing both his criminal hist ory and his offense leve l 3 ba se d o n p ri or

c onvictio nsre sulte d in

doub lec ounting , which h ebrie fly menti on e d in

thi s section of his brief

, has alre ady

been rejected by

this court. Martinez , 434 F.3d at 1323 n.4. 5 conv i ct i on for s ec on d-degree r ob berycr ea t es a di spar i ty i n sent enci ng and renders hi s s ent ence un re as on abl e a l so fa i l s. T he courtcorr ec t l y c al cul at ed the gu i del i nes 3 r a n g e , s e n te n c e d H e rn a n d e z to th e m id d le o f th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e , a n d th is s e n te n c e f

e ll w e ll b e lo w th e s ta tu to rym a x im u m o f tw e n ty - y e a r s im p r is o n m e n t. 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) ; M art i nez , 434 F . 3d a t1322. T he c ourtthe n c ons i de r e d the se nt enci ng fa ct ors of 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , no t ed thatH ernand ez had fi ve i l l egal re e ntr i e s a nd hi s c r i m i na l c onduc tha d e s c a l a t e d f r om the f tt o drugs t o r obbe ryw i th a w e ap o n , a n d d e te rm in e d th a t as e n te n c e a t th e m id d le o f th e r a n g e w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to m ee tthese fa ct ors. T here fore , the se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ctcourtw as re as on abl e. F i nal l y, H ernand ez cl ai m s thathi s s ent ence w i thi n the gu i del i nes r ange w as unr e a s onabl e be c aus e the l a c k of af a s t - tr a c k pr ogr a m i n the N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof G eorgi a c re at ed an “ un w arrant ed se nt enci ng di spar i ty. ” T o the ext entthat H e rna nde z ’ s a r gum e ntc oul d be c ons true d a s ac l a i m tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by denyi ng a dow nw ar d d eparture, w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew thi s c l ai m , as there is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m is u n d e r s to o d its au th o r ityto d e p a rt. W i ni nge ar , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 5 . T o th e e x te n t th a t H e rn a n d e z a r g u e s th a t h is6

s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le , H e rn a n d e z h a s f a ile d to s h o w h o w th e la c ko f af a s ttrackp ro g ram i n th i s case affected h i s sen t en ce. S ect i o n 3 5 5 3 (a) i n cl u d es as a se nt enci ng consi dera t i on “ the need t o avo i d u nw arrant ed se nt ence di spar i t i es am on g d ef

endant s w i th si m i l arre cords w ho have been foun d g ui l ty of s i m i l ar c o n d u c t” a n d th e c o u rt s p e c if ic a llys ta te d th a t it d idn o t th in kth a t as e n te n c e w ith in th e g u id e lin e s “w o u ld a m o u n t to as e n te n c in g d is p a r ity .” M o r e o v e r , a s p r e v io u s ly di s c us s e d, H e rna nde z f

a i l e d t o s how tha thi s s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof th e r e c o r d b e f

o r e th e c o u rt. A cc ordi ng l y, w e A F F IR M H ernand ez ’ s s ent ence . A F F I R M E D .