FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 3, 2007 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. 07- 11610 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 1 9 5 - CR- O RL- 1 9 - 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 C A R L O S E . B O N I L L 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 3, 2007) B efo re W IL S O N , 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

C a r l os E . B oni l l aappe a l s hi s 48- m onth s e nt e nc e f ori l l e ga l r e - e ntry i nt o the U n i t ed S t at es aft er b ei n g d ep o rt ed fo r co m m i tt i n g an ag g rav at ed fel o n y, n am el y, st atut ory r ape of a 13-ye ar -ol d fem al e. O n app ea l , B on i l l a argues thatthe di stri ct c o u r t ( 1 ) im p o s e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e b e c au s e it r e lie d to o h e a v ily o n h is pr i ors t a tut ory r ape c onvi c t i on t o the e xc l us i on of the othe rf

a c t or s s e touti n 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , and (2) err ed i n subj ec t i ng hi m t o the enhanced m axi m um t erm of i m pri sonm entprov i si on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(b)(2) base d o n h i s pri or st atut ory r ape c onvi c t i on w he n thi s c onvi c t i on w a s ne i the rpl e d i n the i ndi c tm e ntnor a d m itte d in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is g u ilty p le a . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th m o r e f

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

f i rm. B on i l l a pl ed gu i l ty t o charges of i l l egal l y r e- ent er i ng the U ni t ed S t at es af t er be i ng de por t e d, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326( a ) a nd ( b) ( 2) . A l though the i ndi c tm e ntdi d notr e f

e rt o apr i orc onvi c t i on, the pr oba t i on of f i c e rs pe c i f

i e d i n the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rtthatB on i l l a w as conv i ct ed of st atut ory r ape, se nt ence d t o o ne ye ari n j ai l , re m ov ed fr om the coun try , and then re-e nt er ed w i thoutthe ne c e s s a ry e xpr e s s c ons e nt . B a s e d on thi s of f e ns e c onduc t , the prob at i on offi ce r s etB on i l l a’ s bas e off ense l evel at8, pu rs uantt o U ni t ed S t at es S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e ( U .S .S .G .) § 2 L 1 .2 ( a ) , a n d ap p lie d a1 6 - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t, pur s ua ntt o § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) , be c aus e B oni l l aw a s de por t e d a f t e rc om m i tt i ng a3

c r i m e of vi ol e nc e , na m e l y , s t a tut ory r ape . B a s e d, i n pa r t , on thi s c a l c ul a t i on, the pr oba t i on of

f i c e rde t e rm i ne d tha tB oni l l a ’ s gui de l i ne i m pr i s onm e ntr a nge w a s 46 t o 57 m onths . T he pr oba t i on of f i c e rnot e d tha tthe s t a tut ory m a xi m um t e rm of im p r is o n m e n t w a s 2 0 y e a r s , p u r s u a n t to § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) . B o n illao b je c te d to recei v i n g th e 1 6 -l ev el en h an cem en t , arg u i n g th ath i s p ri o r st atu t o ry rap e o ffen se d id n o t in v o lv e v io le n c e . B e f or e B oni l l a ’ s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, he e vi de nt l y c ont a c t e d the gove rnm e nt abou tpart i ci pat i ng i n the di stri ct ’ s r ec ent l y a do pt ed fa st -tra ck prog ra m . H e w as t ol d tha the c oul d notpa r t i c i pa t e , how e ve r , be c aus e of hi s pr i ors t a tut ory r ape c o n v ic tio n . A t h is s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o v e rru le d h is o b je c tio n to th e 1 6 - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t, r e a s o n in g th a t th e c o m m e n ta ry to § 2 L 1 .2 s p e c if ic a lly s t a t e d tha ts t a tut ory r ape w a s ac r i m e of vi ol e nc e . A f

t e rhe a r i ng t e s t i m ony f

r om th r e e w itn e s s e s c a lle d b y B o n illain m itig a tio n , B o n illa ’s c o u n s e l’s a r g u m e n ts a s to the need for l eni encyi n sent enci ng B on i l l a, and B on i l l a’ s ow n apo l og y, the di stri ct courtse nt ence d B on i l l a t o 4 8 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . T he di stri ctcourtre as on ed tha tthi s s e nt e nc e appr opr i a t e l y a ddr e s s e d the s e r i ous ne s s of the of f e ns e , r e s pe c tf

or th e la w , ju s t p u n is h m e n t, a n d d e te rr e n c e . O n ap p e a l, B o n illas p e c if ic a lly a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e lia n c e o n h is pr i ors t a tut ory r ape c onvi c t i on t o e nha nc e hi s s e nt e nc e a nd t o e xc l ude hi m f r om4

f a s t - tr a c k be ne f

i t s r e s ul t e d i n as e nt e nc e tha tw a s gr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry a nd i nv ol ved an u nw arrant ed di spar i ty. B on i l l a a l so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n us i ng hi s unpl e d a nd una dm i tt e d pr i ors t a tut ory r ape c onvi c t i on t o appl y the enhanced 20 -y ea r s t atut ory m axi m um t erm of i m pri sonm entun der § 13 26 (b)( 2), w hen the i nst antoffe nse of c on vi ct i on no rm al l y c arri es a 2-y ear s t atut ory m a x im u m te rm o f

im p r is o n m e n t u n d e r§ 1 3 2 6 ( a ) . W e r e vi e w ade f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e f

orr e a s onabl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 786 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W e r e vi e w a r gum e nt s m a de f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l f

orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 480 F . 3d 1277, 1279 ( 11th C i r . 2007) , pe t i t i on f orc e r t . f i l e d, ( U . S . J une 14, 2007) ( N o. 06- 11901) (r evi ew i ng an un pres erved B oo ker c hal l enge for pl ai n err or). T o p rove pl ai n err or, a def endantm ustshow : (1) e rr or, (2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al r i ght s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T urne r , 474 F . 3d 1265, 1276 ( 11th C i r . 2007) , pe t i t i on f or c e r t . f i l e d, ( U . S . J une 05, 2007) ( N o. 07- 5686) . W e ha ve he l d tha t , “ [ i ] n the abse nce of any c on trol l i ng prec edent , there i s no p l ai n err or i n [a] ca se . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. L e

j a r de - R a da , 319 F . 3d 1288, 1291 ( 11th C i r . 2003) R ea so n a b l en ess F ol l ow i ng the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L .E d .2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t n o t o n ly5

m ustca l cul at e the gu i del i ne i m pri sonm entrang e c orre ct l y, bu tal so m usttre atthat r a nge a s a dvi s ory a nd i m pos e ar e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 786 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . I n de t e rm i ni ng i f the di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d a re as on abl e s ent ence , w e r ef ert o the fa ct ors s etou ti n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . U ni t ed S ta te s v . M a r tin , 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . P ursuantt o § 35 53 (a ), the se nt enci ng courtshal l i m po se a s ent ence

“ s uf f i c i e nt , butnotgr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry ” t o c om pl y w i th the purpos e s of § 3 55 3(a) (2), nam el y, re fl ec t i ng the se ri ou snes s of the offens e, prom ot i ng re spec t f o rth e la w , p r o v id in g ju s t p u n is h m e n t f o rth e o f f e n s e , d e te rr in g c r im in a l c o n d u c t, pr ot e c t i ng the publ i c f

r om f utur e c r i m i na l c onduc tby the de f e nda nt , a nd pr ovi di ng the defendantw i th n ee ded edu ca t i on al or vo ca t i on al tra i ni ng or m edi ca l care . S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (2). T he st atut e a l so i nstruct s the se nt enci ng courtt o con si der other f ac t ors, i ncl ud i ng the nature a nd ci rc um st ance s of the offens e and the hi st ory and charac t er i st i cs of the defendantas w el l as “ the need t o avo i d u nw arrant ed s e nt e nc e di s pa r i t i e s a m ong de f e nda nt s w i th s i m i l a rr e c or ds w ho ha ve be e n f ound g u ilty o f s im ila rc o n du c t.” S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( 6 ) . W e d o n o t r e q u ir e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to d is c u s s o rto s ta te th a t it h a s e x p lic itly c o n s id e r e d e a c h p a r t o f

§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 6 . I n s te a d , a n e x p lic it a c k n o w le d g m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s c o n s id e r e d th e d e f e n d an t’s a r g u m e n tsThe SupremeCourt rec ently held that appe llate cour ts may apply a pre sumption of 1 rea sonablene ss to sentence s within the guide line rang e. S ee Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct . 2456, 168 L .Ed.2d 203 (2007). 6 a nd the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s w i l l s uf

f i c e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 436 F . 3d 1324, 1329- 30 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A l s o, w e ha ve he l d tha t“ [ t ] he w e i ghtt o be a c c or de d a ny gi ven § 35 53 (a ) f

ac t or i s am att ercom m i tt ed t o the soun d d i sc re t i on of the di stri ct c our t , ” s uc h tha tw e “ w i l l nots ubs t i tut e ourj udgm e nti n w e i ghi ng the r e l e va nt f a c t or s be c aus e [ o] urr e vi e w i s notde novo. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1 3 5 3 , 1 3 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , c e r t. d is m is s e d , 1 2 7 S .C t. 3 0 4 0 ( U .S . 2 0 0 7 ) . F urtherm ore, w e have hel d thata w i thi n-ra ng e s ent ence ordi nari l y w i l l be expect ed t o be r e a s onabl e , butw i l l notbe tr e a t e d a s pe rs e r e a s onabl e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H unt , 459 F . 3d 1180, 1184 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ; T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t786- 88. 1 S p e c if ic a lly r e g a r d in g th e u n w a rr a n te d - d is p a r ity f a c to re n u m e r a te d in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , w e h a v e h e ld th a t th e d is p a r itie s in th e s e n te n c e s o f o th e rw is e s im ila r ly s i tua t e d de f

e nda nt s tha ta r i s e be c aus e of i nvol ve m e nti n f

a s t - tr a c k pr ogr a m s a r e not

“ un w arrant ed. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. A re val o-Juar ez , 46 4 F . 3d 12 46 , 12 51 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). Indeed, w e have forbi dd en di stri ctcourt s f rom consi deri ng such di spar i t i es i n i m po si ng re as on abl e s ent ence s. Id. W e have not , ho w ever , addres se d w hether the di stri ctcourtca n con si der di ff er ence s i n the rul es for qual i fy i ng for a n a v a ilab le f

a s t- tr a c kp r o g r a m .7

T h e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e d ar e a s o n ab le se n ten ce . S ee T alley, 4 3 1 F .3 d at 7 8 6 . T h e d istrict co u rt co n sid er ed B o n il la’s a r g u m e n ts , B o n illa ’s w itn e s s e s ’ te s tim o n y , an d B o n illa ’s s ta te m e n t o f ap o lo g y . T h e d istrict co u rt also ex p li citl y c o n sid er ed th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f ac to rs . A s to B o n il la’s a r g u me n tr e g a r d i n g th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s ap p l i c a t i o n o f th e f a s t - tr a c kp r o g r a m, B oni l l af a i l e d t o r a i s e thi s a r gum e ntbe f or e the di s tr i c tc our ta nd ha s notc i t e d a ny ca se l aw sugg es t i ng thatexcl usi on of a def endantfr om a f

as t -tra ck prog ra m base d on hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory c re at es an un w arrant ed se nt enci ng di spar i ty bec ause other di s tr i c tc our t s w oul d notha ve e xc l ude d hi m on thi s gr ound. T hus , a ny e rr orby the di s tr i c tc our tw a s notpl a i n. S e e S m i th, 480 F . 3d a t1279; L e j a r de - R a da , 319 F . 3d at12 91 . T here fore , the di stri ctcourtcom pl i ed w i th i t s duty und er§ 3 55 3(a) . S ee S c ott , 436 F . 3d a t1329- 30; T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t786. F ur the rm or e , the s e nt e nc e the di s tr i c tc our tul t i m a t e l y i m pos e d w a s w i thi n- r a nge a nd i s a c c or de d a n e xpe c t a t i on o f r e a s o n ab le n e s s . S e e H u n t, 4 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 4 ; T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 6 - 8 8 . A cc ordi ng l y, because the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y i m po se d a re as on abl e s ent ence , w e a f f i rm hi s s e nt e nc e a s t o thi s i s s ue . S e e T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t786. Enha nc e d St a t ut o r y M a x i m um P ursuantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) , a def endantconv i ct ed of i l l egal re -e ntry a f t e rbe i ng de por t e d norm a l l y i s s ubj e c tt o atw o- y e a rs t a tut ory m a xi m um t e rm of8

i m pri sonm ent . P ursuantt o § 13 26 (b)( 2), ho w ever , a def endantconv i ct ed of i l l egal r e - e ntry , a f

t e rbe i ng de por t e d f

orc om m i tt i ng a n a ggr a va t e d f e l ony , i s s ubj e c tt o a 2 0 - y e a rs ta tu to ry m a x im u m te rm o f im p r is o n m e n t. I n A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe gove rnm e ntne e d nota l l e ge pr i orc onvi c t i ons i n i t s i ndi c tm e ntorpr ove s uc h pr i or c o n v ic tio n s b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t b e f o r e u s in g th e m to s e n te n c e ad e f e n d a n t. 523 U . S . 224, 243- 44, 118 S . C t . 1219, 1230- 31, 140 L . E d. 2d 350 ( 1998) . T he S u p rem e C o u rth as rep eat ed l y reaffirm ed th i s ru l e. S ee A p p ren d i v . N ew Jersey, 530 U . S . 466, 490, 120 S . C t . 2348, 2362- 63, 147 L . E d. 2d 435 ( 2000) ( c r e a t i ng a pr i or - c onvi c t i on e xc e pt i on by hol di ng tha t“ [ o] the rtha n the f a c tof apr i or conv i ct i on , any f

ac tthati ncre as es the penal ty f or a c ri m e bey on d the pres cr i bed s ta tu to ry m a x im u m m u s t b e s u b m itte d to aju ry , a n d p r o v e d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le doubt ” ) ; B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 301, 303- 04, 124 S . C t . 2531, 2536, 25 37 -38, 15 9 L . E d. 2d 40 3 (20 04 ) ( re i t er at i ng the A pp re nd i rul e) ; B oo ker v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 543 U . S . 220, 244, 125 S . C t . 738, 756, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) ( hol di ng 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 ry to s u p p o r t a s e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the m a xi m um author i z e d by the f a c t s e s t abl i s he d by apl 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 b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t” ) .9

W e l i ke w i s e ha ve he l d tha tthi s rul e r e m a i ns good l a w . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m a c h o - I b a r q u e n , 4 1 0 F .3 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 6 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S .C t. 45 7 (20 05 ) ( “ A l tho ug h rec entdeci si on s. . . m ayar gu abl y c as tdo ub ton the future pr os pe c t s of

A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s ’ s hol di ng r e ga r di ng pr i orc onvi c t i ons , the S u p r e m e C o u r th a s n o te x p l i c i t l y o v e rru l e d Al m e n d a r e z - T o rr e s . As ar e s u l t , we m us tf ol l ow A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s . ” ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O r duno- M i r e l e s , 405 F . 3d 96 0, 96 3 (11 th C i r. ) ( “ A l m endarez -T orre s r em ai ns the l aw un t i l the S up re m e C ou rt de t e rm i ne s tha tA l m e nda r e z - T orr e s i s notc ontr ol l i ng pr e c e de nt ” ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 546 U .S . 8 8 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . I n d e e d , w e r e c e n tly ap p lie d th is ru le in th e § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) c o n te x t, ho l di ng that“ the fa ctual i ss ue of w hether adefe nd anthas bee n con vi ct ed of an

‘ a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony ’ f or8 U . S . C . § 1326( b) ( 2) e nha nc e m e ntpurpos e s i s nott o be tr e a t e d a s a n e l e m e ntof the of f e ns e f orc ons t i tut i ona l purpos e s , a nd a s ar e s ul tthe pr i orc onvi c t i on i s notr e qui r e d t o be a l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r e e r , 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . H e r e , b in d in g p r e c e d e n t d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin s e nt e nc i ng B oni l l apur s ua ntt o § 1326( b) ( 2) . S e e S m i th, 480 F . 3d a t1279; Al m e n d a r e z - T o rr e s , 5 2 3 U. S . a t2 4 3 - 4 4 , 1 1 8 S . C t . At1 2 3 0 - 3 1 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we af fi rm hi s s ent ence as t o thi s i ss ue. AF F I RME D.