FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JANUARY 30 , 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- 14220 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 3 1 - CR- O RL- 3 1 - K RS 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 L E J A N D R O B A R R A G A N - S A N C H 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 30, 2006) 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:2

A l e j a ndr o B a rr a ga n- S a nc he z ( S a nc he z ) appe a l s hi s m a nda t orym i ni m um 1 2 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e , im p o s e d a f te rh e p le d g u iltyto c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w ith i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e c o c a i n e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 8 4 6 . On appe a l , he a r gue s tha tm a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e s c onf l i c tw i th the s e nt e nc i ng pu rposes of 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) and are unconst i tut i on al i n l i gh tof U ni t ed S t at es v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) . F orthe r e a s ons s e t f o rth m o r e f

u llyb e lo w , w e a f

f irm . S a nc he z pl e d gui l ty t o the a f or e m e nt i one d c ha r ge be f or e am a gi s tr a t e a nd a dm i tt e d t o, i nt e ra l i a , be i ng the ha l f - ow ne rof

e i ghtki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne som et i m e duri ng Janu ary 200 3. T he m agi stra t e a cc ept ed S anchez’ s pl eaas k n o w i n g an d v o l u n t ary. A pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e port( P S I ) s e tS a nc he z ’ s of f e ns e l e ve l a t32 ba s e d upon af

i ndi ng of be tw e e n 1, 000 a nd 3, 000 ki l ogr a m s of m a r i j ua na e qui va l e nc y , U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 3) . S a nc he z r e c e i ve d atw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e nt for bei ng a m anager or s up ervi sor i n the cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty. N ext , S anchez w as g i v e n ath r e e - l e v e l r e d u c t i o n f o ra c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i typ u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. §§ 3E 1. 1(a) and (b), for at ot al offe nse l evel of 31 . S anchez w as foun d t o b e a t cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory I I, w hi ch atoffe nse l evel 31 , prov i ded for a gui del i nes rang e of 121 -151 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . T he m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence w as3

10 ye ar s, or 12 0 m on ths, pu rs uantt o 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 41 (b)( 1)(A ). S a nc he z obj e c t e d t o the tw o- l e ve l r ol e e nha nc e m e nt , a nd a l s o a r gue d tha tthe s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s w e r e unc ons t i tut i ona l i n l i ghtof B l a ke l yv. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U .S . 2 9 6 , 1 2 4 S .C t. 2 5 3 1 , 1 5 9 L .E d .2 d 4 0 3 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . S a n c h e z a ls o r e q u e s te d th a t, r a the rtha n be i ng s e nt e nc e d a tthe l ow - e nd of the gui de l i ne s , 121 m onths , he be s e nt e nc e d t o 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , the m a nda t orym i ni m um . T he g o v e rn m e n t s u p p o rte d S a n c h e z ’s r e q u e s t, n o tin g th a t a1 2 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e w o u ld avoi d any i ss ues und erB l akel y. T he courtdecl i ned the i nv i t at i on , and sent ence d S a n c h e z to 1 2 1 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. W h ile S a n c h e z ’s c a s e w a s p e n d in g o n ap p e a l, th e S u p r e m e C o u rt is s u e d its de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , r e nde r i ng the gui de l i ne s a dvi s oryi ns t e a d of m andat ory, and the go vernm entfi l ed a m ot i on re qu es t i ng thatthe di stri ctcourt ce rt i fythata r em and w as w arrant ed i n o rdert o correc tthe error and re se nt ence S a n c h e z . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te d th e m o tio n , a n d is s u e d a n o r d e rs ta tin g th a t it w a s i nc l i ne d t o r e s e nt e nc e S a nc he z . S ubs e que nt l y , thi s C ourtgr a nt e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s m ot i on f

orar e m a nd f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng. A tr e s e nt e nc i ng, S a nc he z , i n or de rt o pr e s e rve the r e c or d, r e que s t e d tha tthe di stri ctcourtse nt ence hi m bel ow the 12 0-m on th m andat ory m i ni m um , ar gu i ng that m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e s v io la te d th e F if th , S ix th , a n d E ig h th A m e n d m e n ts4

i n l i ghtof

B ooke r . T he di s tr i c tc ourts t a t e d tha ti tw a s bound by pr e c e de nta nd tha t , butf

orthe gui de l i ne s , i tpr obabl yw oul d ha ve s e nt e nc e d S a nc he z t o the m a n d a to ry m in im u m . A c c o r d in g ly , S a n c h e z ’s s e n te n c e w a s r e d u c e d o n e m o n th to 1 2 0 mo n th s ’ i mp r i s o n me n t , th e s t a tu t o rymi n i mu m. O n appe a l , S a nc he z c onc e de s tha tw e pr e vi ous l yha ve uphe l d the const i tut i on al i ty of m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence s i n d rug cas es , i ncl ud i ng af t er A pp re nd i v. N ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6, 12 0 S . C t . 23 48 , 14 7 L . E d. 2d 43 5 (20 00 ), buta r gue s tha t , pos t - B ooke r , m a nda t orym i ni m um s e nt e nc e s now i nf r i nge on a j ud ge’ s di sc re t i on and d uty t o i m po se a s ent ence suff i ci ent , bu tno tgrea t erthan n e c e s s a ry , to a c h ie v e th e s e n te n c in g g o a ls b a s e d u p o n 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . S a nc he z a r gue s tha ts om e s e nt e nc e s be l ow m a nda t orym i ni m um s a r e s uf f i c i e nt , but notgr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry , t o a c hi e ve s e nt e nc i ng purpos e s unde r§ 3553( a ) , a nd, there fore , m andat ory m i ni m um s c re at e aconfl i ctbetw ee n B oo ker’ s r em edi al s c h e m e a n d f

e d e r a l s e n te n c in g la w . T h u s , S a n c h e z a r g u e s th a t th e ru le o f le n ity r e q u ir e s th is C o u rt to p r o c e e d in am a n n e rth a t f a v o r s d e f e n d a n ts a n d p e rm it § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) to “tru m p ” m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e s , th e r e b yp e rm ittin g c o u rts to t ake the m i ni m um i nt o acc ou nt , bu tse nt ence bel ow w hat , i n ess ence , w ou l d b e an a d v is o ry m in im u m s e n te n c e . W e r e vi e w c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s t o as e nt e nc e de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v.5

C h au , 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T o th e e x te n t th e q u e s tio n r a is e d is one of s t a tut ory i nt e rpr e t a t i on, r e vi e w i s a l s o de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S e a r c y , 418 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e rt. d e n ie d , ( U .S . J a n . 9 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( N o . 0 5 - 7 9 2 2 ) . I n B ooke r , the S upr e m e C ourte xpl i c i t l yr e a f f i rm e d i t s hol di ng i n A ppr e ndi th a t “[ a ]n y f

a c t ( o th e rth a n ap r io rc o n v ic tio n ) w h ic h is n e c e s s a ryto s u p p o rt a s e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the m a xi m um author i z e d bythe f a c t s e s t abl i s he d byapl e aof gu i l ty or aj ury ver di ctm ustbe adm i tt ed by the defendantor prov ed t o a j ury beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . at___, 12 5 S . C t . at 756. I n as e c ond, r e m e di a l opi ni on, the C ourthe l d tha tthe gui de l i ne s w e r e no lo n g e rm a n d a to ry , b u t a d v is o ry , a n d d is tr ic t c o u rts s h o u ld ta k e th e g u id e lin e s in to a c c o u n tw h e n c o n s i d e r i n g a l l o f th e s e n t e n c i n g f

a c t o r s s e tf

o rth a t1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(a) . Id. at___, 12 5 S . C t . at76 4, 76 7-69 . N othi ng i n B oo ker, ho w ever , el i m i nat ed or decl ar ed un const i tut i on al m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence s a s provi ded f o rb y C o n g r e s s in d ru g c r im e s . P re -B oo ker and A pp re nd i , w e uph el d the const i tut i on al i ty of m andat ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e s , not i ng tha t , “ w i thi n the c ongr e s s i ona l l ye s t abl i s he d r a nge f or s e nt e nc e s , nothi ng i n s e c t i on 841( b) ( 1) r e s tr i c t s the di s c r e t i on of as e nt e nc i ng j udge i n f

a s hi oni ng a n i ndi vi dua l i z e d s e nt e nc e i n l i ghtof the s pe c i f

i c f a c t s of the of f e ns e a nd hi s t ory of

the of f e nde r . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ol m e s , 838 F . 2d 1175,6

1177 ( 11th C i r . 1988) ( r e j e c t i ng a r gum e nttha tm a nda t orym i ni m um s vi ol a t e due pr oc e s s ) . P os t - A ppr e ndi , the S upr e m e C ourtuphe l d the c ons t i tut i ona l i tyof m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e s . H a rr is , 5 3 6 U .S . a t 5 6 8 - 6 9 , 1 2 2 S .C t. a t 2 4 2 0 . T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt in B o o k e rm a d e n o m e n tio n o f H a rr is , n o rh a s it o v e rru le d it s in c e . A c c o r d in g ly , w h ile it is p o s s ib le th a t B o o k e r ’s r e m e d ia l s c h e m e c o u ld i m pl i ca t e m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence s i n the future, un t i l the S up re m e C ou rt hol ds tha tm a nda t ory m i ni m um s vi ol a t e the F i f th a nd S i xth A m e ndm e nt s of the C o n s t i tu t i o n , we a r e o b l i g e d t o c o n t i n u e f o l l o wi n g Harr i s a s p r e c e d e n t . As we r e c e n tlys ta te d : I t is n o t g iv e n to u s to o v e rru le th e d e c is io n s o f th e S u p r e m e C o u rt. W e ha ve s t a t e d r e pe a t e dl y , a nd w i th r e s pe c tt o the ve ryi s s ue pres ent ed i n thi s app ea l , that‘ w e are no tatl i berty t o d i sr egar d b in d in g c a s e la w th a t is s o c lo s e lyo n p o in t a n d h a s b e e n o n ly w ea k en ed , rath erth an d irec tl y o v erru led , b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt.’ T h is is s o e v e n if

w e a r e c o n v in c e d th a t th e S u p r e m e C o u rt w ill o v e rtu rn its p r e v io u s d e c is io n th e n e x t tim e it a d d r e s s e s th e is s u e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G i bs on, N o. 04- 14776, m a nus c r i ptop. a t22- 23 ( 11th C i r . J a n. 4, 20 06 ) ( ho l di ng that , w hi l e w ou nd ed, the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n A l m endarez T orr e s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 224, 118 S . C t . 1219, 140 L . E d. 2d 350 ( 1998) r e ma i n s b i n d i n g p r e c e d e n t ) ( c i t a t i o n s o mi tt e d ) . Th u s , u n l e s s a n d u n t i l th e Su p r e me C o u rt h o ld s th at m an d ato ry m in im u m se n ten ce s v io late th e C o n stitu ti o n , S an ch ez ’sIti s n o t ed as we l lth atS an ch ezadm i tt edd uri n g h i s p l eaco l l o quy

t o th e am o unto f dru gs 1 used to trig g er the mandatory minimum sentenc e of 120 months’, prec luding any possible Booker constitutional error, a

nd was resentence d under theadvisory guidelines scheme , prec luding a ny possible statutory

error. The g o v ernm ent urg es us to apply the doctrineof expressio unius est exclusi o alterius 2 (mention of on e th i n g i mp l i es the ex clusion of the other). This is one method of statutory construction, but does not ca rry the rule or force of law. See United St ates v. Camacho-I barquen, 410 F.3d 1307, 1312- 13 (11th Cir. 2005). While the government’s a rgument may

have merit, we decline to address the issue at this t ime. 7 a r gum e ntl a c ks m e r i t . S e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1333 1 n . 1 0 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [w ] e em p h asi ze th atth e d i stri ctco u rtw as, an d st i l l i s, bo un d b y the st atut ory m i ni m um s. ”) . La s t l y , t o th e e x t e n tth a tSa n c h e z i s a r g u i n g th a tma n d a t o rymi n i mu ms confl i ctw i th the st atut ory s ent enci ng du t i es of a c ou rtun der 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , thi s a r gum e ntl a c ks m e r i t . C ongr e s s s pe c i f i c a l l ygr a nt e d di s tr i c tc ourt s the autho ri ty t o sent ence bel ow a pre sc ri bed m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence i n l i m i t ed c ir c u m s ta n c e s , s u c h a s w h e r e ad e f e n d a n t p r o v id e s s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e to author i t i e s , ori n the c a s e of ade f e nda ntw i th l i tt l e t o no c r i m i na l hi s t oryw ho m ee t s other c ri t er i a. S ee 18 U . S . C . §§ 35 53 (e ) and (f ). T he fa ctthatC on gres s has 2 chosen t o seta s ent enci ng fl oo r f or drug cr i m es do es no tconfl i ctw i th § 35 53 (a ), b u t r a th e rp r o v id e s as ta rtin g p o in t f o rs e n te n c in g . A s th e S u p r e m e C o u rt n o te d in H a rr is , ju d ic ia l d is c r e tio n m a y b e c h a n n e le d w h e n c e rta in f in d in g s a r e m a d e , a n d in the i nst antca se , S anchez a dm i tt ed t o the drug am ou nttri gg er i ng hi s m andat ory8

m i ni m um . S ee H arri s, 53 6 U . S . at56 7, 12 2 S . C t . at24 19 . W hi l e m andat ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e s a r e ope n t o c r i t i c i s m , s uc h a s the f a i l ur e t o t a ke i nt o a c c ount th e u n i q u e ci rcu m st an ces o f cert ai n o ffen d ers, th ese i ssu es an d q u est i o n s are b est le f t to C o n g r e s s . I d . a t 5 6 8 - 6 9 , 1 2 2 S .C t. a t 2 4 2 0 . B as ed on the foregoi ng , w e a ff i rm S anchez’ s 120 -m on th sent ence , w hi ch w a s r e q u ir e d b y s ta tu te . AF F I RME D.