F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT A pril 2 7, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1673 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 19 4- CR-T-2 6- TGW UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DARIO SERRANO-ARAUZ, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A pr il 27, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: De fendant-Appellant D ario Ser rano-A rauz a

ppeals his 1 35-m onth sentence im pose d a ft er

he ple d gu ilty

to (1 ) ai din g and a

be tti ng i n th e poss es sio n w ithint en t to d istri but e fi ve kil ogr am s or m or e of c oc ai ne w hil e ab oard

ave sse l su

bj ec t t o th e2

j ur isd ic tio n of

the U nit ed

S ta te s, in vio la tio n of

46 App. U . S. C. § 19 03( a) , ( g) ; 18 U . S. C. § 2; and 2 1 U . S. C. § 96 0( b) (1 )( B) (i i) ; and ( 2) c onsp ir ac y to poss es s w ith intent to distribu te five kilogram s or m ore of coca ine while aboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in viol ation of 46 App. U .S .C. § 1903 (a), (g ), and ( j ); and 2 1 U . S. C. § 96 0( b) (1 )( B) (i i) . N o r ev er sib le e rr or ha s be ensho w n; w e a f f i rm. S e rr a n o - A r au z f

i r s tar g u e s th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u rte rr e di n d e n yi n g h i m a m ino r ro le r ed

uc tio n, U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2( b) . H e as se rt s th at he w as le ss c ulp ab le than othe r pe rs ons fo und on the boat, w hic h w as c ar ry ing 1, 640 kil ogr am s of cocaine. Ser

rano-A rauz a lso contend s that he was unable to present evidence dem onstrating that he wa s entitled to a m inor role reduction because the district court, which sentenced Serrano-Ara uz’ s co-defendants before sentencing him , had a “ pr ec onc ei ve d id ea ” of

S er rano- A ra uz ’ s se nte nc e an d di d no t m ak e its m ino r ro le determ ination based on the facts of Se rrano-A rauz’ s case. W e re vie wf

or c le ar e rr or the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio ns a bout a de fe ndant’ s r ole in anof

fe nse . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ry an , 289 F . 3d 1 339, 134 8 ( 11th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . Th e b u r d e n i s o n th e d e f e n d a n tt o e s t ab l i s h h i s r o l e b y a pr ep onde ranc e of

e vid en ce . I d. U nde r U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2( b) , “ [a ] de fe ndant w ar rants atw o- le ve l r ed

uc tio n f or play ing a m ino r ro le in anof

fe nse if he is le ssSerra

no-Ara uz argued that he should re ceive a role reduc tion because , amongother thing s, (1) 1 he wa s tr ave lin gon

a bo at th at w a s d e signe d to mov e c arg o a nd that w a s c arr

yingwa sh ingma c hin e s; (2) the boat’s owner

decide d to c arr

y drug s without S err ano-Arauz’s knowledg e; (3) Ser rano- Ara uz did no t r e c eive a

su bs tanti a l f

ina nc ia l be ne fi t f

or his wo rk on the bo at; ( 4) Se rr ano -Ara uz w a s a c a bin e tmake r who wa s hir e d to do woo dw or k on the bo at; an d (5) he did no t ha ve an e qu ity

int e re st in t he smu g g le d d

ru g s. 3 culpable than m ost oth er participants, althoug h his role couldnot be described as m ini m al . ” I d. S en te nc ing c ourts s houl d c onsi de r tw o e le m en ts whe n de te rm ini ng a defe ndant’s r ole in an offense: “ first, the defendant’ s role in the relevant conduct for w hich [he] has been held accountable at sentencing, and, sec ond, [his] role as co m pare d to that of

oth er part ic ipants in [h is] r el ev an t c ondu ct . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 940 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). As an initial m atter, Ser

rano-A rauz’ s argum ent that he was unable to offer evidence in supp ort of a m inor role reduction is without m erit. T he district court he ar d S er rano- A ra uz ’ s e xte nde d arg um en t a bout w hy he sho uld

r ec ei ve am ino r ro le r ed uc tio n. I n a ddi tio n, S er

rano- A ra uz ha s no t art ic ulate d w ha t e vid en ce or 1 ar gum en t a

bout his r el ev an t c ondu ct

he w as una

ble to pr es en t t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt. W e al so c onc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed no c le ar e rr or in de te rm ini ng tha t S er

rano- A ra uz ’ s r ole in the of

fe nse w as m or e than m ino r. About the first elem ent of the De Varon analy sis, Ser rano-A rauz’ s sentence wa s based onl y on the r el ev an t c ondu ct

f or w hic h he w as he ld a cc ount ab le a t se nte nc ing : the 1, 640 kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne se iz ed

f ro m the boat onw hic h he w as tr av el ing . A nd4

the dis tr ic t c ourt c or

re ct ly poi nte d to the boat’ s si gni fi cant am ount of dr ugs in de ny ing S er

rano- A ra uz am ino r ro le r ed

uc tio n. S ee id. a t 94 3 ( not ing that, in the dr ug c our ie r co nte xt, the a m ount of dr ugs is a “ m at er ia l c onsi de ratio n” in as se ssi ng a

de fe ndant’ s r ole in his r el ev an t c ondu ct ). About the se co nd e le m en t, Se rr an o- A ra

uz w as part

of a sm al l gr oup tr av el ing on the boat, w hic h w as c ar ry ing a substanti al am ount of cocaine. Ser rano-A rauz has f

ailed to show that he was

“ le ss c ulp ab le than m ost

oth er part ic ipants in [h is] r el ev an t c ondu ct , ” id. a t 94 4; an d w e se e no c le ar

e rr or in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n no t t o a ppl y am ino r ro le reduction in th is case. Se rr an o- A ra

uz a lso arg ue s th at

his se nte nc e w as unr ea sona ble . H e co nte nds that, in de te rm ini ng h is s en te nc e, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ai le d to c onsi de r al l of

the se nte nc ing f

ac tor s se t ou t a t 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) . S er rano- A ra uz a sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d onthe “ status quo ” of se nte nc ing de fe ndants in sim ilar ca se s to 135 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t and tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef er en ce to the se ct ion 3553 (a) factors at sentencing failed to sh ow that Se rrano-A rauz w as sentenced pur suant t o th e Su

pr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n inU nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . 738 (200 5). W e re vie wS er

rano- A ra uz ’ s se nte nc e fo r re as ona ble ne ss i n th e lig ht o f the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s. U nit ed

S ta te s v. W ini nge ar , 422 F . 3d 1 241, 124 4- 46Ex cept fordis putin gthe dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on no t to a pp ly a min or ro le re du c tio n to his 2 sentenc e, Serr ano-Arauz does not challeng e the district court’s calculation of hi s Guidelines ra ng e. 5 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) . Unde r se ct ion355 3( a) , adis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r, a m ong oth er thi ngs, the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse , the his tor

y and ch ar ac te ri sti cs of

the de fe ndant, the ne ed

f or a de qua te de te rr en ce and p ro te ct ionof the pub lic , pol ic y

state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the m ed ic al and e duc at ion al ne ed s of the de fe ndant, and the ne ed to av oid un warra nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 )-(7 ). Se rr an o- A ra

uz ’ s se nte nc e w as r ea sona ble . T he dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly calculated his Guidelines im prisonm ent range as 135 to 168 m onth s; and the court se nte nc ed S er rano- A ra uz to the low es t po int

of that r an ge . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. 2 T al le y , 431 F . 3d 7 84, 788 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( not ing that “ or din ar ily w e w oul d ex pe cta se nt en ce wi th in th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e to be reas on ab le ”). Before sentencing Serrano-Ara uz, the district court noted that it had re vie w ed the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s and tha t a

r ea sona ble se nte nc e fo r Se rr an oA ra uz w as a t the bottom

of his a dvi sor

y G uid el ine s r an ge . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso explained that th is case involved a large quantityof cocaine; and the district court lis te ne d to S er

rano- A ra uz ’ s st at em en ts a

bout w hy he c ont inu ed

to w ork onthe boat and abou t som e of his personal charac teristics. T he district court judge w as6

no t re qu ire d t o d is cu ss all of t he sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or s at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng . See United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 132 4, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (e xplaini ng that

“ noth ing in Booker or elsew here r equires the district court to state on th e re cord that i t ha s e xpl ic itl y

c onsi de re d e ac h of

the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s or to dis cu ss ea chof the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s” ). W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly determ ined Serrano-Ara

uz’ s Guidelines range and considered the section 35 53(a) fa ct or s inim

posi ng the se nte nc e in this c as e. N oth ing in the r ec or d c onvi nc es us that Serr ano-Ar auz’ s sentence wa s unreasonable in th e light of the section 35 53(a) fa ct or s. AFFIR MED.