FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 28, 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- 13183 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 5 4 5 - C R - T - 3 0 - E AJ 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 O R L A N D O H U R T A D O , 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

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 28, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

O rl ando H urt ado app ea l s hi s s ent ence for tw o con trol l ed subst ance vi ol a t i ons . H urt a do a r gue s tha t( 1) the di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d hi s r i ght s t o tr i a l by j ury a nd due pr oc e s s , unde rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , b y d e c lin in g to ap p ly af o u r - le v e l r e d u c tio n f

o rH u r ta d o ’s m in im a l r o le in th e c o n s p ir a c y a n d ( 2 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e rr e d b y d e n y in g th e r e d u c tio n . W e a f f i rm. I n O c to b e r2 0 0 4 , th e U .S . C o a s t G u a r d o b s e rv e d A v e n tu r e r o , af is h in g b o a t, r e f u e lin g a n u n n a m e d “g o - f a s t” v e s s e l in in te rn a tio n a l w a te r s in th e P a c if ic O c e a n . T he C oastG uard suspec t ed thatthe go -f as tvess el w as bei ng used t o transpo rt c oc a i ne i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd boa r de d the ve s s e l t o i ns pe c ti t s c a r go. T he C oastG uard di sc ov er ed 21 93 ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne and arre st ed the fi ve-m em ber c r e w . T he f

ol l ow i ng da y , the C oa s tG ua r d boa r de d the A ve ntur e r o, f ound f i ve 55- g a l l o n f u e l d ru m s — f

o u re m p ty a n d o n e f

u l l

— a l o n g wi th h o s e s , p u m p s , a n d t o wl i nes, and arr es t ed the se ven m en on bo ar d, i ncl ud i ng H urt ado. A l l 12 m en w er e i ndi c t e d on tw o c ount s : pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne w hi l e aboa r d a ve s s e l s ubj e c tt o the j ur i s di c t i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s , 46 U . S . C . app. § 1903( a ) , a nd conspi ra cyt o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne w hi l e abo ar d a vess el subj ec t to th e ju r is d ic tio n o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s , id . § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( j) . H u r ta d o p le a d e d g u ilty to both c ha r ge s on J a nua ry 5, 2005.3

A thi s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, H ur t a do c onc e de d the f a c tua l a c c ountof

the p r e s e n te n c e in v e s tig a tio n r e p o rt. H u r ta d o o b je c te d to th e f

a ilu r e o f th e r e p o r t to r e c om m e nd af

our - l e ve l r e duc t i on f

orbe i ng a“ m i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nt ” i n the c ons pi r a c y butdi d nota r gue tha tf a i l ur e t o appl y the r e duc t i on w oul d vi ol a t e the C o n stitu ti o n . U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 (a ). T h e d istrict co u rt o v er ru led H u rtad o ’s obj ec t i on bu tgrant ed a tw o-l evel re du ct i on for bei ng a “ m i no r part i ci pant . ” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 ( b ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c a lc u la te d H u r ta d o ’s to ta l o f f e n s e le v e l to be 27 a nd hi s a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge t o be 70 t o 87 m onths of i m pr i s onm e nta nd s e n te n c e d H u rta d o to 7 0 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. T hi s C ou rtre vi ew s de nov o the const i tut i on al i ty of ase nt ence , se e U ni t ed S ta te s v . P a z , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 4 6 , 9 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , b u t w h e r e th e d e f e n d a n t f a ils to pr e s e rve hi s a r gum e ntf orappe a l , w e r e ve r s e f

orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1328 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ A di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of a def endant ’ s r ol e i n the offens e i s afi nd i ng of fa ctt o b e r evi ew ed on l y f or cl ear error. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d 93 0, 93 7 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc). W e f i r s ta ddr e s s H urt a do’ s c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge t o hi s s e nt e nc e . H ur t a do a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtvi ol a t e d hi s r i ght s t o tr i a l by j ury a nd due pr oc e s s by f a ilin g to r e d u c e h is s e n te n c e f o rb e in g a“m in im a l p a r tic ip a n t” in th e c o n s p ir a c y . S e e § 3B 1. 2( a ) . H urt a do c ont e nds tha tB ooke rpr ohi bi t s the di s tr i c tc our tf r om4

“ f i ndi ng tha tM r . H urt a do w a s m or e tha n am i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nt ” be c aus e H ur t a do

“ di d nota dm i tt o be i ng a ny thi ng m or e tha n am i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nt ” a nd “ i tw a s not f o u n d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t b y aju ry .” T h is a r g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it. W e h a v e h e ld th a t B o o k e r ’s p r o h ib itio n a g a in s t e x tr a - v e r d ic t e n h a n c e m e n ts i s dependenton the m andat ory nature of the gu i del i nes. S ee S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d at 1331 ( “ B ooke re rr ore xi s t s w he n the di s tr i c tc our tm i s appl i e s the G ui de l i ne s by c ons i de r i ng the m a s bi ndi ng a s oppos e d t o a dvi s ory . ” ) . E ve n i f the f a i l ur e t o gr a nt ar e duc t i on unde rs e c t i on 3B 1. 2( a ) c oul d be vi e w e d a s a n “ e nha nc e m e nt , ” the di s tr i c tc ourts e nt e nc e d H urt a do unde ra n a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s s c he m e . B e c aus e the di stri ctcourtdi d n otconsi der the gu i del i nes t o b e m andat ory, H urt ado’ s s ent ence do es no tvi ol at e B oo ker. S ee i d. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr. H urt ado al so ar gu es thatthe deni al of a r educt i on for bei ng a “ m i ni m al part i ci pant ” w as cl earl y e rr on eous. W e di sa gree . S ec t i on 3B 1. 2(a) prov i des, “ If th e d efen d an tw as a m i n i m al p art i ci p an ti n an y cri m i n al act i v i ty, d ecrease b y 4 l e ve l s . ” U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2( a ) . T o qua l i f y f orthi s r e duc t i on, the de f e nda ntm us tbe

“ pl a i nl y a m ong the l e a s tc ul pabl e of thos e i nvol ve d i n the c onduc tof agr oup. ” I d. cm t . 4. W e r equi re the defendantt o sho w by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence that h e p la y e d a“r e la tiv e ly m in o rr o le in th e c o n d u c t” a n d th a t h is “r e la tiv e c u lp ab ility5

vi s - a - vi s tha tof

any othe rpa rt i c i pa nt s ” w a s m i ni m a l . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R y a n, 289 F . 3d 1339, 1348- 49 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ; s e e a l s o D e V a r on, 175 F . 3d a t939. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y e rrby fi nd i ng H urt ado w as no ta “ m i ni m al part i ci pant ” und erse ct i on 3B 1. 2. H urt ado adm i tt ed thathe hel ped t o ref uel a boat c o n ta in in g n e a r ly 2 2 0 0 k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tly c o n s i d e r e d th e a m o u n to f c o c a i n e i n d e t e rm i n i n g Hu r t a d o ’ s c u l p ab i l i ty . S e e De V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d at94 3. F urther, H urt ado fai l ed t o p re se ntevi dence thathe w as

“ subst ant i al l y l es s c ul pabl e than the avera ge part i ci pant , ” buti nst ea d argued that som e others w er e m ore c ul pabl e. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y l oo ked t o al l m em bers o f th e co n sp i racy t o w h i ch H u rt ad o p l ead ed g u i l ty an d fo u n d H u rt ad o n o l ess c ul pabl e tha n the othe rc r e w m e m be r s of the A ve ntur e r o. B e c aus e H ur t a do di d not sat i sfy h i s b u rd en o f p ro v i n g th ath e w as “ p l ai n l y am o n g th e l eastcu l p ab l e o f th o se i nvol ve d i n the c onduc tof agr oup, ” the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n de ny i ng the r e duc t i on. H u rta d o ’s s e n te n c e is A FFI R M ED .