FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JUNE 9 , 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- 15717 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 1 1 - CR- FTM - 2 9 - SPC 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 E D U A R D O T A M A Y O O L I V E R O S , 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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 9, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T 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: E du ar do T am ay o O l i ve ros app ea l s hi s 120 -m on th sent ence , w hi ch w as im p o s e d f

o llo w in g h is g u ilty p le a to c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m ore than fi ve ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1),Ol ivero s’ s p le a a gre e me nt c ontaine d a

n a pp e a l w a iver in whichhewaive d h is right t o 1 appeal the sentenc e, includingon the ground that the district cour t had e rr ed in calculatingthe Guidelines ra

ng e, except on certain specified grounds. The government states that it has not filed a motion to dism iss thi s a

pp e a l be c a

us eit is argua

ble that Ol ivero s’ s c laim is no t a c halleng eto h is sentenc e, but rather a

challeng e to the district cour t’s proce dures at th e s entenc ing he aring , and beca use it is unclear

whether Oliveros seeks a newsentenc ing he aring, a revocation of his plea agreement, or some other

form of relief. We g ive appe llant thebenef it of the doubt and address the merits of his claim, rather than dismissing the a ppeal ba sed on the waiver, be cause : (1) there is an argument to be made that the appeal does n o t fa l l wi thin the express terms of the waiver, a s conce ded by

the g overnment ; (2 ) th e gover nment does not seek a

pplication of the waiver a nd has alre ady expended the re source s to brief th e ca s e o n the merits; and (3) application of thewaiver would not be outcome- deter minative. 2 84 1(b)(1)(A )( i i ), 84 6. F or the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l , O l i veros a rgues thatthe di stri ct c our te r r e d by gi v i n g h i m not i c e tha thi s c ont i nue d obj e c t i on t o the a m ountof drug s a t tri bu t abl e t o h i m , an am ou ntt o w h ich h e h ad al re ady a gree d i n h i s w ri t t en pl e a a gr e e m e nt , w oul d r e s ul ti n the c our t ’ s de ni a l of a n of f e nse-l eve l a dj us tm e nt 1 for a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty un der U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1. O l i veros s ug gest s that the di stri ctcourt ’ s not i ce i m pai re d h i s F i fth and S i xt h A m en dm entri gh t s. A ft er c a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. W e r evi ew obj ec t i on s t o sent en cin g issues ra i se d for the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l for pl ai n err or. S ee U n it ed S t at es v. H arness , 18 0 F . 3d 12 32 , 12 34 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) . T o p r e v a il u n d e rth is s t a n d a r d , O liv e r o s m u s t s h o w “( 1 ) e r r o r , ( 2 ) th a t is pl a i n, a nd ( 3) tha ta f

f e c t s s ubs t an t i a l r i ght s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 12 9 8 (1 1 th C i r . ) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i t t e d) , c e r t . de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 29 35 (200 5 ). “If al l three cond i t i on s a re m et , an appel l at e c ou rtm ay then3

e x e r c is e its d is c r e tio n to n o tic e a f o r f e ite d e r r o r , b u t o n ly if ( 4 ) th e e r r o r s e r io u s ly a f f e c t s the f

a i r ne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l p ro ceedi ngs . ” I d. ( q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . P ri or t o sent enci ng , O l i veros s i gn ed a pl ea ag re em enti n w hi ch he adm i t t ed th a t a n e le m e n t o f

th e o f f e n s e w a s “ [ t ] h a t th e o b je c t o f th e u n la w f

u l p la n w a s to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m o r e th a n 5 k i l o g r a m s o f c o c a in e a s c h a r g e d .” M or e ove r , a tthe pl e a c ol l oquy , O l i ve r os de s c r i be d hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the un derl yi ng conspi ra cy , as fol l ow s: “ I’ m gu i l ty. I t al ked t o t he C S [c o n fid en ti al source ] . . . . A n d I w as the on e w ho t al ked t o t he C S t o g etthem t og ether a nd ca rry o u t th e tr a n s a c tio n . T h a t’s w h y I a m g u ilty .” H e f u r th e r e x p la in e d , “ T h e q u a n t i ty w as . . . w h at they ac tual l y had w er e three ki l os. B utI a m gu i l ty bec ause i tgo es back t o the f

a c t tha t I t a l ke d f

i r s t a bo ut t e n, a nd the n, l a t e r , f i ve . But w ha t w e had w as tho se three ki l os. ” A c c or di ng t o the pr e s e nt e nc e i nv e s t i ga t i on r e po r t( “ PS I ” ) , O l i ve r os offe re d t o s e l l f

i ve ki l ogr a m s o f co cai n e t o a C S . D ur i ng a r e c or de d t e l e phone conv er sa t io n, w hen t he C S i nd i ca t ed thathe w as i nt er es t ed i n p urchas i ng t en k ilo g r a m s , O liv e r o s to ld th e C S to “g e t r e a d y ” f o rth e te n , in a n tic ip a tio n th a t it w oul d be a c qui r e d. I n a nothe rr e co rd ed t e l e phone c onve r s a t i on, O l i ve r os t ol d the C S tha the w a s r e a dy t o de l i ve rthe f i r s tf i ve ki l ogr a m s , an d t h at t h e othe rf i ve4

k ilo g r a m s w o u ld b e r e a d y f o rd e liv e r y in th e u p c o m in g w e e k . A f te rm e e tin g w ith the C S , O l i ve r os c a nc e l e d the tr a ns a c t i on, r e f us i ng t o f

i n al i ze d e l i ve r y a nd att em pt i ng t o l ea ve the ar ea . O l i veros s ub se q u en tl y w as arre st ed and t hree ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne w e r e f

ound i n a hi dde n s t or a ge a r e a i n the “ e ngi ne bl oc k” a r e a ( unde rthe hood) of the ve hi c l e he w a s dr i vi ng. T h e P S I r e c o m m e n d e d a b as e o ff en se lev el o f 3 2 b as ed o n O li v er o s’s resp o n sibi l i ty f

or t en ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne, U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(c) (4), and a three l evel re du ct i on for a cc ept an ce of re spon si bi l i ty, U . S . S . G . §§ 3E 1. 1(a) , 3E 1. 1(b). W i th a n a dj us t e d of

f e ns e l e ve l of

29 a nd a c r i m i na l h i st o ry c a t e gor y I I , a nd t a ki ng in to c o n s id e r a tio n t h e 1 2 0 - m o n th m a n d a to r y m in im u m o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) , O l i ve r os f a c e d a G ui d el i ne s s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 120 t o 121 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. O l i ve r os obj ect ed t o the a s s i gnm e ntof r e s pons i bi l i ty f

ort e n ki l ogr a m s of coca i ne, ra th er th an three . P ri or t o t he se nt enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourti ss ued a N ot i c e t o C ouns e l R e ga r di ng S e nt e nc i ng ( “ N ot i ce” ) , w hi c h i nf or m e d O l i ve r os th a t h e “s h o u ld b e p r e p a r e d to d is c u s s a t th e s e n t e n c in g h e a r in g w h y [ h e ] s h o u ld not l os e the a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty de duc t i ons f or hi s f a l s e o r fri vol ous obj ec t i on [] t o t he qu ant i ty of c ocai ne bei ng atl ea stth e q u an ti ty t o w hi ch he pl ed gui l ty . ” T he N ot i c e c i t e d U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1, c om m e n t 1 (a), w hi c h pr ovi de s the5

fo l l ow i ng: “ a de f

e nda ntw ho f

a l s e l y de ni e s , orf

r i vol ous l y c ont e s t s , r e l e va nt c o n d u c t th a t th e c o u r t d e te r m in e s to b e tru e h a s a c te d in a m a n n e r i n c o n s is te n t w ith a c c e pt an ce of

r e s pons i bi l i ty . ” A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, O l i ve r os w i thdr e w the o b je c tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e d a 1 2 0 - m o n th te r m o f im p r is o n m e n t. T h is a ppe a l f ol l ow e d. O l i veros no w a r gu e s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ou r t ’ s i s s ua nc e of the N ot i c e i nf

r i nged on hi s r i gh tt o ar gu e a tthe se n te nci ng hear i ng thathe w as re spon si bl e f or an am ou nt(three ki l og ra m s) th at w as bel ow the am ou ntt o w hi ch he agree d i n h i s pl ea a g r e e m e n t a n d a t th e p le a c o llo q u y . T h is a r g u m e n t h a s n o m e r i t s in c e it is w e llse t t l ed thata di stri ctcourtm ay “ deny a defe nd anta r educt i on un der § 3E 1. 1 b as ed on cond ucti ncon si st entw i th acc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty, even w hen t hatcond uct i nc l ude s the a s s e r t i on of a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght . ” U ni t e d St at e s v . S m i th, 127 F . 3d 98 7, 98 9 (1 1t h C i r . 19 97 ) ( en banc) (e m ph as i s a d d ed ) (up ho l di ng the deni al of an a c c e pt a nc e of

resp o n si bi l i ty r e duc t i on ba s e d on the de f e nda nt ’ s obj e c t i ons t o the P S I ) . T h is is s o b e c a u s e a d e f e n d a n t’s f

a ls e d e n ia l o f

r e le v a n t c o n d u c t is

“ i ncon si st entw i th t he ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty . ” U ni t ed St at es v . H ernand ez , 1 6 0 F .3 d 6 6 1 , 6 6 7 - 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . T h u s , b a s e d o n O liv e r o s ’s o b je c tio n a s to drug qu ant i ty, even if th e o bj ec t i on w as base d o n a const i tut i on al ri gh t , the di stri ct courtw as fr ee t o d eny a n acc ept ance -of- re spon si bi l i ty r educt i on . If the di stri ct6

c our tw oul d notha ve e r r e d by d en yi n g t he a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty r e duc t i on a l t oge the r , w e f

a i l t o see h o w the c our tc om m i t t e d pl a i n e r r orby w a r ni ng O l i ve r os th a t h e c o u ld lo s e th e r e d u c t io n , th e r e b y g iv in g O liv e r o s th e o p p o r tu n ity to wi th d r a w th e o b

j e c t i o n a n d r e t a i n t h e b e n e f i to f th e r e d u c t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y, we a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.