FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 8 , 2006 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. 05- 15859 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 71 -C R -4 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 N A T D A N A I P O L C H A N T A R A , 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 S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 8, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: N at danai P ol chant ar a appeal s hi s 33 -m on th s ent ence , w hi ch w as im po se d a f t e r h e p l e d g u i l ty t o r e c e i p to f c h i l d p o r n o g r ap h y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C.Pol c ha ntara a lso a ssert s v ari ou s c laims fo r ine ff e c tiv ea ssi sta

nc eof trial c ouns e l. 1 Ge n er al ly , we will not review a c laim of ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel raise d on direc t appeal when the district c o urt did not entertain the c laim or deve lop a factual re cord. United States v. Bender, 290 F .3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Massaro v. United States, 538 U .S. 500, 504, (2003) ( “[I ]n m ost cases a motion brought under [28 U.S.C .] § 2255 i s pref era ble to direc t appeal fo r de c idingc laims of

ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e .” ). B e c a

us e Pol c ha

nta ra ’s c laims were never raise d in the district court, the f

acts underlying Polcha

ntara ’s ineff

ective- assistanceclaims h ave not been su ff ic iently deve lop e d s o a s to e na

bleus to re a c h th emeri ts o f P olcha nta ra ’s c laims -- th at is , to c on side r whe ther c ouns e l w a s tr uly ine ff e c tiv eor us e d s ound

trial stra te gy . Thus, we declineto consider this claim o n d i re ctappeal, without prejudice to Polchantara’s a bility to raise them later in a § 2255 motion. See Bender, 290 F .3d at 1284. Polchantara

did not appeal to the district cour t from the magi s trat e judge ’s order deny ing 2 appointment of an inter

preter. B eca

use welack jurisdiction t o re v i ew a mag istrate judg e’s order

2 § 2252A ( a ) ( 2) ( A ) . O n appe a l , P ol c ha nt a r a a r gue s tha t( 1) the m a gi s tr a t e j udge e r r e d by f

a i l i ng t o appoi nta n i n t erp ret e rpur s ua ntt o the C our tI nt e rpr e t e r ’ s A c t , 28 U . S . C . § 1827( d) ( 1) ( A ) , a nd ( 2) hi s s e nt e n ce v i o l at e d U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220 ( 2005) , be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our te nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nce b ased o n a pr i or arrestan d c o n si d ered th e U n i t ed S t at es S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es t o b e m an d at o ry. 1 A ft er th o ro u g h r e v i ew o f th e reco rd an d carefu l co n si d erat i o n o f th e p art i es’ b ri efs, w e d is m is s in p a r t a n d a f f ir m in p a r t. T h e p art i es are fam i l i ar w i th th e fac ts an d w e o n l y su m m ari ze th o se ne c e s s a r y t o oura na l y s i s . O n A pr i l 8, 2005, P ol c ha nt a r a w a s i ndi c t e d f orr e c e i pt o f 6 0 0 o rm o r e i m a g e s o f c h i l d p o r n o g r ap h y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S. C. § 2252A ( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( C ount1) , a nd pos s e s s i on of c hi l d por nogr aphy , i n vi o l a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2252A ( a ) ( 5) ( B ) ( C ount2) . H e pl e d g u i l t y t o C ount1 pur s ua ntt o a w r i tt e n pl e a a gr e e m e nta nd pr oc e e de d t o s e nt e nc i ng. 2where the de fenda nt failed to appe al the order t o the district court, United States v. B rown, 342 F .3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir. 2003), we must dismiss the appeal a s to that order. 3 A c c o r d in g to th e p r e s e n te n c e in v e s tig a tio n r e p o r t ( “P S I ” ) , P o lc h a n ta r a , a na t i ve of T ha i l a nd, m ove d t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n 1992 a nd e a r ne d a ba c he l orof a r t s de gr e e i n gr aphi c de s i gn i n 2001. P ol c ha nt a r a w as at t em pt i ng t o obt a i n a gr a dua t e de gr e e i n gr aphi c de s i gn w he n the i ns t a ntof f e ns e w a s d i sco v ered i n 2004. A m ul t i - a ge nc y i nve s t i ga t i on i nt o R e gpa y , a thi r d- pa r ty bi l l i ng a nd c r e di t - c a r daggregat i ng com pany, re veal ed a num ber of i nd i vi du al s, i ncl ud i ng P ol chant ar a, w ho pai d t o acc es s c hi l d p orno graphy w ebsi t es . A se ar ch of P ol chant ar a’s ap a r tm e n t y ie ld e d 2 5 2 m o v ie f ile s th a t h e ld c h ild p o r n o g r ap h y a n d 2 , 1 4 9 s e p a r a te im a g e s o f

c h ild p o r n o g r ap h y . T h e P S I r e c o m m e n d e d a b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

1 7 , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 G 2 .2 ( a ) , a n d th e f

o llo w in g a d

ju s tm e n ts : ( 1 ) tw o le v e ls w e r e a d d e d , p u r s u a n t to § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 1) , s i nc e the m a t e r i a l i nvol ve d a p rep u be s c e ntm i norora m i norw ho h a d n o t a tta in e d th e a g e o f 1 2 y e a r s ; ( 2 ) f

o u rle v e ls w e r e a d d e d , p u r s u a n t to § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 3) , be c a us e the of f e ns e i nvol ve d m a t e r i a l t h at p or tr a y e d s a di s t i c or m as ochi st i c cond uct or ot her depi ct i on s of vi ol ence ; and ( 3) three l ev els w er e d ed u ct ed , p u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1 . 1 ( a ) a n d ( b ), fo r accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty. W i th an adj ust ed offens e l evel of 20 an d a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory I , P ol chant ar a f a c e d a s e n te n c in g r a n g e o f 3 3 to 4 1 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t.Th e dis tric t c ourt de sc ribe d the arre st a s “po sse ssi on of po rn ogra phy ,”but th ePSI

lis ts i t 3 as an a rre st for sexual expl oitation of children. 4 A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng on O c t o b er 1 2 , 2005, P ol c ha nt a r a a s s e r t e d the f ol l ow i ng m i t i ga t i ng ci r c um s t a nc e s : ( 1) hi s m othe r ’ s poorhe a l th, w hi c h i nc l ude d a n e r v o u s b r e a k d o w n a n d h e a r t a n d k id n e y p r o b le m s ; ( 2 ) h is d e s ir e to r e tu r n to T hai l and and “ t o stra i gh t en ou t[hi s] l i fe ”; and (3) hi s r em orse . T he di strictcourt a ls o c o n s id e r e d a le tte rf r o m P o lc h a n ta r a ’s f

a th e ra n d th e a r g u m e n ts o f c o u n s e l. T he di s tr i c tc our ti nqui r e d a bouthow P ol c ha nt a r a c oul d have be e n a dm i tt e d t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n 1 9 9 2 a n d r e ma i n i n th e c o u n tr y f o ro v e rt e n y e a r s o n a s t ude nt vi s a . Th e d i s tr i c tj u d g e n o t e d th a tPo l c h a n t a r a w a s a r r e s t e d i n 1 9 9 3 f o ra p r e vi ous c h ild p o r n o g r ap h y c h a r g e , b u t c la r if ie d , s p e a k in g to P o lc h a n ta r a , th a t: 3 [ th e a r r e s t w a s ] g o in g to h a v e n o th in g to d o w ith th e s e n te n c e y o u w ill get t oda y , oka y ? B uti t ’ s obvi ous t o m e i n m y opi ni on f r om r e a di ng the P S I a nd l ooki ng a ty ourhi st o r y tha ty ou t ook f ul l a dva nt a ge of

our l e ni en cy; t h a ty ou t ook f ul l a dva nt a ge of

be i ng a dm i tt e d i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s on a s tude ntvi s a a nd be i ng a pa r t - t i m e s tude nt , a nd not g o i ng a he a d a nd ge tt i ng y oure duc a t i on a nd the n ha vi ng the be ne f i tof thateducat i on , and g oi ng back t o h el p you r par ent s, then, w i th t h at e d u c a tio n , o rw h a te v e r . T h a t is n o t g o in g to h a v e a n y th in g t o d o w ith y o u rs e n te n c e to d a y , b u t it’s c le a rto m e , I m e a n , th a ts in c e 1 9 9 2 u n til no w , i f y ou ca n’ tgetyour degree, then I do n ’tkn ow w hen you ’ re g o in g to g e t it. T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n s t a t e d tha t“ [ t ] he [ c ] our tf i nds no reaso n t o de pa r tf r om the s e n te n c e c a lle d f

o rb y ap p lic a tio n o f

th e a d v is o r y g u id e lin e s in a s m u c h a s th e f a c ts5

as fo un d are the ki nd cont em pl at ed by the S ent enci ng C om m i ss i on , ” a nd i m po se d a s e n te n c e a t th e lo w e s t e n d o f th e a d v is o r y r a n g e - - 3 3 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. O n app ea l , P ol chant ar a a ss er t s B oo ker e rr or because “ the di stri ctcourtused [ hi s ] pr i ora r r e s ta s a n e nha nc e m en t and c ons i de r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G u i d el i n es t o b e m an d at o ry rath er th an ad v i so ry. ” A p p ’ tB ri ef at1 9 -2 0 . B ecau se P ol chant ar a f

ai l ed t o ass er t th ese a rgum ent s i n t he di stri ctcourt , w e w i l l re vi ew th e m f o rp la in e r r o ro n ly . U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 2 9 3 5 (2 0 0 5 ). A n app el l at e c ou rtm ay no tcorr ec tan e r r orthe de f

e nda ntf a i l e d t o r a i s e i n the di s tr i c tc our tunl e s s the r e i s “ ( 1) e r r or , ( 2) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . “ I f a ll th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t, a n ap p e lla te c o u r t m a y th e n e x e r c is e its d is c r e t io n to n o t i ce a fo rfei t ed erro r, b u to n l y i f (4 ) th e erro r seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . I n B ooke r , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe m a nda t or y na tur e of the S en ten cin g G u id elin es re n d er ed th em in c o m p atib le w ith th e S ix th A m en d m en t’ s gua r a nt e e t o the r i ghtt o a j ur y tr i a l , an d , as a r e m e dy , e xc i s e d the por t i on of the G u id e lin e s m a n d a tin g t h a t d is tr ic t c o u r t’s im p o s e a s e n te n c e w ith in th e ap p lic a b le G ui del i nes r ange . 5 43 U . S . at25 8-59 . T he S up re m e C ou rtno t ed, ho w ever , that c o u r ts m u s t c o n tin u e to c o n s u lt th e G u id e lin e s , to g e th e rw ith th e f a c to r s l i s te d in6

18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , w hi c h i nc l ude , i nt e ra l i a , the na tur e a nd c i rcu m st anc e s of the o f f e n s e , th e h is to r y 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, t h e n e e d f

o ra d e q u a te det erre n ce , prot ec t i on of the pu bl i c, the pert i nentS ent enci ng C om m i ss i on po l i cy s t a t e m e nt s , a nd the ne e d t o a voi d unw a r r a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i es. S e e i d. ; 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . U n d e rth e r e m a in in g p r o v i s io n s o f § 3 7 4 2 , c o u r ts o f

ap p e a ls m u s t r e v ie w s e n te n c e s f o r“u n r e a s o n a b le [ n e s s ].” B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . a t 2 5 9 - 6 0 . W e ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha tthe r e a r e tw o ty pe s of B ooke re r r or : ( 1) c ons t i tut i ona l e r r or unde r the S i xth A m e ndm e nt ba s e d upon sen t e nc i ng enhancem ent s nei ther a dm i tt ed by the defendantno r sub m i tt ed t o a j ury a nd prov en beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt ; and (2) st atut o ry , o r non -c on st i tut i on al , error bas ed upon s e nt e nc i ng unde ra m a nda t or y G ui de l i ne s s y st e m . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 1 3 3 0 -3 1 (1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ). T here i s no B oo ker e rr or -- of a const i tut i on al or st atut ory nature - - bas ed sol el y on t he appl i ca t i on of extra -ver di ct e nha nc e m e nt s . R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d a t1300 -0 1 ; se e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a l dw e l l , 431 F . 3d 795, 798 n. 5 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( not i ng tha tno B ooke re r r or occurre d b ec ause the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d app el l antun der a dv is ory G ui del i nes a nd w i thouta ny e xtr a - ve r di c te nha nc e m e nt s ) , c e r t . de ni e d, (U . S . A p r . 3, 2006) ( N o . 0 5 - 9 4 9 4 ) . N o ris th e r e B o o k e re r r o rw h e r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c c u r a te lyWe can f ind nothing in the record to support Polchantara ’s position that the district cout 4 enhanc ed his sentenc e for a prior a rre st. Indeed, although th e d i s tri ct cour t mentioned the prior arre st, it twi c ee xpre ssly a ssu re d Po lc ha

nta ra that hi s immigra

tio n s tatus w ou ldno t a ff e c t hi s sentenc e. 7 cal cu l at es th e ad v is o r y G u i d el i n e ran g e an d co n si d ers th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors. U ni t ed S t at es v. S cot t , 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 29 -30 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). H er e, there w as no B oo ker e rr or because the di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y i nd i ca t ed thati tw as aw ar e thatthe G ui del in es w ere advi sory . S ee R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d at 13 00 -01; C al d w el l , 43 1 F . 3d at79 8 n . 5. M oreover, the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d P o l ch an t ara t o th e l o w esten d o f th e G u i d el i n e s r a n g e. C f. U n i t ed S t at es v . T al l ey, 43 1 F . 3 d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( obs e r vi ng tha ta l though a s e nt e nc e w i thi n the a dvi s or y G ui de l i ne s r a nge i s n o t p e rs e r e a s ona bl e , w e or di na r i l y e xpe c ts uc h a s e n te n c e to b e r e a s o n a b le ) . O n th is r e c o r d , w e c a n f i n d n o e r r o r , le t a lo n e p la in 4 error, base d o n B oo ker a nd concl ud e thata l ow -e nd 3 3 -m on th sent ence w as re as on abl e. D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D A FFI R M ED I N PA R T.