FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 17, 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 os . 06- 11675, 06- 11676 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 9 9 - C R - F T M- 3 3 - DN F 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 F R AN C I S C O R AY ON S AN T I AG O D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t. 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 L A U D I A P E R E Z G A R C I A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.2 ________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom 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 17, 2006) B efo re H U L L , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: I n thi s c ons ol i da t e d appe a l , c o- de f e nda nt s C l a udi a P e r e z G a r c i a a nd F r a n c is c o R a y o n S a n tia g o c h a lle n g e th e irs e n te n c e s im p o s e d a f te rth e y p le d g u ilty to tr a n s p o r tin g ille g a l a lie n s f o rp r o f it, in v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . O ff

en se C on d u ct C a r m e l a A l t a m i r a no- V a s que z w i r e d $2, 000 t o a n a c c ountt o ha ve he r15- ye ar -ol d d augh t er , O l i m pi a, sm ug gl ed fr om M exi co i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es . A ft er be i ng s m uggl e d i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s thr ough C a l i f or ni a , O l i m pi a w a s pl a c e d i n a va n c ont a i ni ng appr oxi m a t e l y 14 t o 16 othe ri l l e ga l a l i e ns a nd w a s tr a ns por t e d by D e f e n d a n ts G a r c ia a n d S a n tia g o to F lo r id a . V as qu ez had b ee n t ol d thather daugh t erw ou l d b e dropp ed off a ta gas s ta tio n . W h e n th e v a n a rr iv e d a t th e g a s s ta tio n , h o w e v e r , D e f e n d a n t G a r c ia3

i nf or m e d V a s que z tha tV a s que z w oul d ha ve t o pa y a n a ddi t i ona l $780 dol l a r s f or de l i ve ry of

O l i m pi a . W he n V a s que z r e f us e d t o pa y the e xtr a m one y , D e f e nda nt G ar ci a drove the van aw ay w i th O l i m pi a s t i l l i nsi de. V a s que z pur s ue d the va n i n he row n ve hi c l e . U s i ng a c e l l phone , D e f e nda nt G a r c ia c a lle d V a s q u e z ’s r e s id e n c e a n d to ld th e w o m a n w h o a n s w e r e d th a t G a r c ia w a s dr i vi ng be tw e e n 80 a nd 90 m i l e s a n houra nd w oul d thr ow O l i m pi a outof the van i f V as qu ez di d n otst op fol l ow i ng her. V as qu ez ca l l ed 91 1 and re po rt ed that he rda ught e rha d be e n ki dnappe d. L a w e nf or c e m e nts t oppe d the va n a nd f ound D ef endantG ar ci a, D ef

endantS ant i ago and four i l l egal al i ens, i ncl ud i ng O l i m pi a, i nsi de. A f te rb e in g a rr e s te d , D e f

e n d a n ts G a r c ia a n d S a n tia g o a d m itte d to I m m i gr a t i on a nd C us t om s E nf or c e m e nta ge nt s tha tthe y kne w the pa s s e nge r s i n the va n w e r e i l l e ga l a l i e ns . G a r c i a f ur the ra dm i tt e d tha ts he ha d be e n pa i d $800 a nd th a t s h e w o u ld h a v e r e c e iv e d a n a d d itio n a l $ 8 0 0 u p o n c o m p le tio n o f th e tr ip . D e f e nda ntG a r c i a t ol d l a w e nf or c e m e nttha ts he a nd D e f e nda ntS a nt i a go w e r e not g iv e n a lis t o f

w h ic h a lie n s s till o w e d m o n e y a n d th a t th e a lie n s w e r e s u p p o s e d to te ll th e m . D e f e n d a n t S a n tia g o a d m itte d b e in g a d r iv e ro f th e v a n a n d th a t h e w o u ld h a v e b e e n p a id $ 1 ,0 0 0 u p o n c o m p le tio n o f th e tr ip . S a n tia g o a ls o a d m itte d to4

h a v in g m a d e s im ila rtr ip s tw o o rth r e e tim e s in th e p a s t. B . G u i l t y P l e as I n s e p a r a te h e a r in g s , b o th D e f e n d a n ts G a r c ia a n d S a n tia g o p le d g u ilty to tra nspo rt i ng “ an i l l egal al i en or al i ens” kn ow i ng thatthe “ al i en or al i ens” had ille g a lly e n te r e d th e U n ite d S ta te s , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) . A tD ef endantG ar ci a’ s pl eahear i ng , the m agi stra t e j ud ge advi se d G ar ci a that s he f a c e d a t e n- y e a rpe na l ty f ore a c h a l i e n tr a ns por t e d a nd thus c oul d f a c e 30 t o 40 ye ar s’ i m pri sonm ent . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 4(a) (1)( B )( i ). T he m agi stra t e j ud ge no t ed the pos s i bl e appl i c a t i on of a 20- y e a rs t a tut ory e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on e nda nge r i ng a n a l i e n a nd a s ke d the gove rnm e nt ’ s pos i t i on. S e e i d. § 1324( a ) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) . T he A ss i st antU ni t ed S t at es A tt orney ( “ A U S A ”) re pres ent i ng the go vernm ent , w ho w as s t a ndi ng i n f

orthe A U S A a s s i gne d t o G a r c i a ’ s c a s e , s t a t e d tha the di d notbe l i e ve thatthe al i ens had been endang er ed or thatthe U ni t ed S t at es w ou l d b e s ee ki ng that part i cul arst atut ory e nh ance m ent . B as ed on the A U S A ’ s r es po nse a nd the fa ctthat thr e e a l i e ns ha d be e n m e nt i one d i n D e f e nda ntG a r c i a ’ s pl e a a gr e e m e nt , the m a g is tr a te ju d g e f

o u n d th a t th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m s e n te n c e w a s 3 0 y e a r s . D ef endantG ar ci a di sa gree d w i th the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s c al cul at i on of the st atut ory m a xi m um be c a us e the i ndi c tm e ntha d nots pe c i f i c a l l y i de nt i f

i e d m or e tha n one a lie n . A c c o r d in g ly , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e a llo w e d G a r c ia a o n e - d a y c o n tin u a n c e to5

c o n te m p la te h e rp le a . A tthe cont i nu at i on of the pl eahear i ng , the go vernm ent ’ s m ai n cou nsel w as pr e s e nt . T hi s A U S A c l a r i f i e d tha t , a l though the gove rnm e ntw a s nots e e ki ng a st atut ory e nh ance m entbase d o n end angerm ent , i tw ou l d l i kel y be a ski ng for a g u id elin es en h an ce m en t. T h e m ag istrate ju d g e r es tated th at D ef en d an t G ar cia’s st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence w as 30 ye ar s. G ar ci a per si st ed i n h ergu i l ty pl ea , w h ich w as ac ce p ted b y th e d istrict co u rt o n th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s r e c om m e nda t i on. A thi s pl e a he a r i ng, D e f e nda ntS a nt i a go a dm i tt e d t o dr i vi ng w i th D e f e nda nt G ar ci a f rom C al i forni a t o b ri ng i l l egal al i ens t o F l ori da. S ant i ago al so cl ar i fi ed thatthere w er e tw o i l l egal al i ens i n the van w hen i tw as st op ped b y l aw e n f o r c e m e n t. A s w ith G a r c ia ’s p le a h e a r in g , th e p a r tie s d e b a te d th e ap p r o p r ia te s t a tut ory m a xi m um s e nt e nc e . U l t i m a t e l y , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ound tha tthe m a x im u m p e n a lty w a s 3 0 y e a r s . S a n tia g o e x p r e s s e d h is d e s ir e to p e r s is t in h is gui l ty pl e a , butnot e d tha tthe i ndi c tm e ntha d f a i l e d t o a l l e ge the s pe c i f i c num be rof a l i e ns i nvol ve d. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge r e c om m e nde d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta c c e pt S a nt i a go’ s pl e a , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tdi d s o. C . Se nt e nc i ng H e a r i ng T he pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t s ( “ P S I ” ) r e c om m e nde d hol di ng6

D ef endant s G ar ci a a nd S ant i ago account abl e f or tra nspo rt i ng atl ea st14 i l l egal al i ens bas ed on l aw enforce m enti nt ervi ew s w i th O l i m pi a a nd the ot her tw o i l l egal al i en s fo u n d i n th e v an . T h e P S Is ap p l i ed a th ree-l ev el o ffen se l ev el i n crease pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 1(b)(2) because G ar ci a a nd S ant i ago h ad tra nspo rt ed betw ee n 6 and 2 4 i l l egal al i ens. T he P S Is al so m ade atw o-l evel vi ct i m -r el at ed a d ju s tm e n t p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 A 1 .3 b e c a u s e O lim p ia h a d b e e n p h y s ic a lly r e s tr a i ne d w he n G a r c i a ha d dr i ve n of f w i thoutde l i ve r i ng he rt o he rm othe r . T he P S I s c a lc u la te d a g u id e lin e s r a n g e o f 1 5 to 2 1 m o n th s f

o re a c h d e f

e n d a n t. C i t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), D ef endant s G ar ci a a nd S ant i ago o bj ec t ed t o the three -l evel i ncre as e f or the nu m ber of al i ens tra nspo rt ed. G ar ci a a nd S ant i ago al so obj ec t ed t o the vi ct i m -r el at ed a dj us tm e nt . T he de f

e nda nt s di d notobj e c tt o the por t i ons of the P S I s c ont a i ni ng th e f a c ts o f th e o f f e n s e . T he di s tr i c tc our tove rrul e d a l l of the de f e nda nt s ’ obj e c t i ons a nd a dopt e d the fa ct s a nd gu i del i nes c al cul at i on s i n the P S I. A s t o D ef endantG ar ci a, the di stri ct courtno t ed the advi sory gu i del i nes r ange of 15 t o 2 1 m on ths, st at ed thati thad c o n s id e r e d a ll th e f

a c to r s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a n d f o u n d th a t a 2 1 - m o n th se nt ence w as approp ri at e. T he di stri ctcourtexpl ai ned t hati tse nt ence d G ar ci a a t the hi gh e nd of

the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge be c a us e G a r c i a ha d “ pr e y e d on theGarcia and Santiag o timely raised their Booker obj ections t o the enhancement based on the 1 number of aliens, and thus , we review their claims on appeal de novo, but reverse only for ha rmful error. United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). 7 w i shes of peop l e w ho w ant ed t o com e t o the U ni t ed S t at es . ” T he di stri ctcourt no t ed i n p art i cul arthe cruel w ay i n w hi ch G ar ci a had tre at ed O l i m pi a a nd her m other. A s t o D ef

endantS ant i ago, the di stri ctcourtagai n n ot ed the advi sory gui de l i ne s r a nge a nd s t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d S ant i ago t o a 17 -m on th sent ence . T he di stri ctcourt e xpl a i ne d tha ti tha d i m pos e d thi s pa r t i c ul a rs e nt e nc e f orde t e rr e nc e purpos e s a nd be c a us e hi s c o- de f

e nda nt , G a r c i a , w a s m or e c ul pa bl e . T he di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d, ho w ever , thatS ant i ago d i d n otdese rve ase nt ence atthe l ow end o f the gu i del i nes r a nge be c a us e hi s a c t i ons ha d pr e y e d on the vul ne r a bi l i t i e s of othe r s a nd w e r e done f orpr of i t . G a r c i a a nd S a nt i a go appe a l e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . B oo k er D ef endant s G ar ci a a nd S ant i ago fi rs tar gu e thatthe di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed the i rc ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s unde rB ooke rw he n i te nha nc e d the i rs e nt e nc e s ba s e d on th e n u m b e ro f

a lie n s tr a n s p o r te d . T h is a r g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it. I t is w e ll 1 s e tt l e d tha t , a s l ong a s a di s tr i c tc our tappl i e s the gui de l i ne s i n a n a dvi s or y f a s hi on,8

w hi ch the di stri ctcourtdi d i n thi s c as e, i ti s notprec l ud ed fr om m aki ng addi t i on al f a c tua l f i ndi ngs , unde ra pr e ponde r a nc e - of - the - e vi de nc e s t a nda r d, tha tgo be y ond the fa ct s c harged i n the i nd i ctm entand adm i tt ed by the defendant . S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. C ha u, 426 F . 3d 1318, 1323- 24 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A ddi t i ona l l y , G a r c i a a nd S a nt i a go di d notm a ke a f a c tua l obj e c t i on t o the num be rof a l i e ns a l l e ge d i n the P S I , e f f e c t i ve l y a dm i tt i ng thi s f a c tf orB ooke rpurpos e s . 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 , 13 30 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). A cc ordi ng l y, there i s no B oo ker error. B. A ppr e ndi D ef endantS ant i ago al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcom m i tt ed error und er A p p r e n d i v . N e w J e r s e y , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2 3 4 8 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , b y in c r e a s in g h is s ta tu to ry m a x im u m b a s e d o n th e n u m b e ro f a lie n s tr a n s p o r te d , a f

a c t n o t a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. S e e B la k e ly v . W a s h in g to n , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 , 3 0 3 - 0 4 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 2531, 2537 ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tthe “ ‘ s t a tut ory m a xi m um ’ f orA ppr e ndi purpos e s i s the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e a j udge m a y i m pos e s ol e l y ba s e d on the f a c t s r e f l e c t e d i n the j ury ve r di c tora dm i tt e d by the de f e nda nt ” a nd nota ddi t i ona l j udge - m a de f i ndi ngs ( e m pha s i s r e m ove d) ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc om m i tA ppr e ndi e rr or . D ur i ng h is p le a c o llo q u y , S a n tia g o a d m itte d th a t th e r e w e r e tw o a lie n s in th e v a n w h e n it w a s s t oppe d by l a w e nf or c e m e nt . T hus , the t e n- y e a rpe na l ty appl i e d t o e a c h a l i e n,We reviewa sentencingcourt’s f indi n g s of fact for c lear

error and theapplication of the 2 guidelines to those fac ts de novo. United States v. B ehr, 93 F .3d 764, 765 (11th Cir. 1996). 9 r e s ul t i ng i n a 20- y e a rs t a tut ory m a xi m um . S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1324( a ) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) . T he f a c t s f ound by the di s tr i c tc our t , na m e l y tha t14 a l i e ns w e r e tr a ns por t e d, di d not i nc r e a s e S a nt i a go’ s s e nt e nc e a bove the s t a tut or y m a xi m um a uthor i z e d by S a nt i a go’ s a dm i tt e d f

a c t s . I nde e d, S a nt i a go’ s 17- m onth s e nt e nc e w a s w e l l be l ow the t e n- y e a rs t a tut ory m a xi m um tha tw oul d ha ve appl i e d ha d S a nt i a go notm a de tha ta dm i s s i on. C . R e s t r a i ne d Vi c t i m Enha nc e m e nt G ar ci a a nd S ant i ago al so chal l enge the di stri ctcourt ’ s use of the re stra i ned vi c t i m e nha nc e m e nt , pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3A 1. 3. U nde rU . S . S . G . § 3A 1. 3, the 2 di stri ctcourtm ay i ncre as e adefe nd ant ’ s off ense l evel by tw o i f avi ct i m w as “p h y s ic a lly r e s tr a in e d ” in th e c o u r s e o f th e o f f e n s e . U .S .S .G . § 3 A 1 .3 . “P h y s ic a lly r e s tr a i ne d” m e a ns the “ f or c i bl e r e s tr a i ntof

the vi c t i m s uc h a s by be i ng t i e d, bound, or l ocked u p. ” U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 1, com m ent . (n. 1(K )) . T he use of the m od i fi er

“ such as ” i n thi s def

i ni t i on i nd i ca t es thatthe i l l ustra t i on s of physi ca l re stra i ntar e l i st ed by w ay of exam pl e r ather than as l i m i t at i on s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. G on za l ez , 18 3 F . 3d 13 15 , 13 27 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ) ( concl ud i ng thatforc i bl y hol di ng vi ct i m s a t gu np oi ntconst i tut ed ph ys i ca l re stra i nt ), ov errul ed on other groun ds, U ni t ed S t at esWe alsore je c t G arc ia ’sargument t

hat the g ov e rnment repre sente d in the trial c ourt that it 3 wo uld no t se e k the re straine d vic tim e nh anc e ment. Th e g ov e rnment never repre sente d th at it wo uld no t se e k the§ 3 A1 .3 e nh anc e ment. Rather, it s tate d th at it did no t th ink that th estatutor

y penalty for en d an g e r

ment, 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 4 ( a) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( ii i) , a p p li e d . Inany

e v e nt, th edis tric t c o urt w as 10 v. D i a z , 248 F . 3d 1065 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . W e ha ve c ons true d the de f i ni t i on of

“ ph ys i ca l l y r es tra i ned” i n § 1B 1. 1 t o i ncl ud e asi tuat i on i n w hi ch the vi ct i m s w er e he l d a ga i ns tthe i rw i l l , w e r e l e f tw i th no a l t e rna t i ve butt o c om pl y w i th the de f e nda nta nd ha d no e f

f e c t i ve w a y of

l e a vi ng. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a l l e j o, 297 F .3 d 1 1 5 4 , 1 1 6 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( in v o lv in g v ic tim s h e ld w h ile b e in g f o r c e d to s i gn doc um e nt s e ve n though the vi c t i m s w e r e pe r m i tt e d t o m ove be tw e e n a c l ub and a res t aura ntnextdo or). H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin ap p ly in g th e § 3 A 1 .3 enhancem ent . Inst ea d o f del i veri ng O l i m pi a – a 15-yea r- ol d i l l egal al i en – t o h er m o th e ra t th e g a s s ta tio n a s a rr a n g e d , G a r c ia d r o v e a w a y w ith O lim p ia in o r d e rto e xt or tm or e m one y f

r om he rm othe r . G a r c i a a l s o thr e a t e ne d t o thr ow O l i m pi a out of the va n i f

he rm othe rdi d nots t op f ol l ow i ng the va n. G a r c i a ’ s a c t i ons a nd th r e a ts e f f e c tiv e ly p r e v e n te d O lim p ia f r o m le a v in g th e v a n a n d jo in in g h e rm o th e r . G a r c i a ’ s a r gum e nttha tO l i m pi a w a s noti n da nge rdur i ng the s e e ve nt s i s i rr e l e va nt b e c a u s e w h e th e rO lim p ia w a s p h y s ic a lly r e s tr a in e d w ith in th e m e a n in g o f § 3 A 1 .3 do es no tturn o n w hether the vi ct i m w as i n d anger, bu ton w hether the vi ct i m w as un abl e t o l ea ve. 3require d to calculated Garcia ’s guidelines rang e based on all relevant conduct that occur red during th e c o mmis s io n o f th e o f f e n s e re g ardle s s o f th e g o v e r nment’ s rep re s e ntati o n s . Se e U . S.S.G. § 1B1.3( a). Ge n er all y , we review denovo a claim of double counting . United States 4 v. Matos-Rodriguez, 188 F .3d 1300, 1310 (11th Cir. 1999) . Whil e Ga rcia did object to a sentence at th ehigh end

of theguide lin e s rang e , s he did no t cle arly make a do ub lec ountingob

je c tio n. Thus , her c laim on appeal is reviewe d only for plain error . See United States v. Ne ely, 979 F.2d 1522, 1523 (11th Cir. 1992). 11 F u rth er m o re , th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t clear ly er r in attrib u ti n g G ar cia’s c onduc tt o S a nt i a go be c a us e s uc h c onduc tw a s r e a s ona bl y f or e s e e a bl e gi ve n the na tur e of the of f e ns e . S e e U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3( a ) ( 1) ( B ) , c m t . n. 2 ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tone de f e nda nti n a ba nk r obbe ry i s he l d a c c ount a bl e f ors e c ond de f

e nda nt ’ s a s s a ul t i ng ori nj ur i ng a vi c t i m be c a us e s uc h c onduc tw a s r e a s ona bl y f or e s e e a bl e “ gi ve n the n a tu r e o f th e o f f e n s e ” ) . G a r c ia a n d S a n tia g o a g r e e d to tr a n s p o r t ille g a l a lie n s , a s c a r e d a nd vul ne r a bl e gr oup, a c r os s the c ountry i n e xc ha nge f orm one y . A s pa r tof thi s pl a n, G a r c i a a nd S a nt i a go w e r e r e qui r e d t o c ol l e c tm one y f r om the a l i e ns upon de l i ve r i ng the m t o the i rde s t i na t i on. T he s e c i r c um s t a nc e s c r e a t e d a n e nvi r onm e nt r i pe f ore xt or t i on. D . D o ubl e C o unt i ng F in a lly , G a r c ia a r g u e s th a t h e r2 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e w a s e x c e s s iv e b e c a u s e it w a s b a s e d o n “d o u b le e n h a n c e m e n ts f o rth e s a m e o f

f e n s e .” “‘I m p e r m is s ib le

4 d o u b l e co u n t i n g o ccu rs o n l y w h en o n e p arto f th e G u i d el i n es i s ap p l i ed t o i n crease a d e f e n d a n t’s p u n is h m e n t o n a c c o u n t o f a k in d o f

h a r m th a t h a s a lr e a d y b e e n f u lly12

a c c ount e d f

orby appl i c a t i on of

a nothe rpa r tof

the G ui de l i ne s . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D udl e y , ___ F . 3d ___, 2006 W L 2571020, a t*4 ( 11th C i r . S e pt . 8, 2006) ( quot i ng M a t os - R odr i gue z , 188 F . 3d a t1309) . H e r e , no doubl e c ount i ng e rr oroc c ur r e d. G a r c i a ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s e nha nc e d ba s e d on tw o s e pa r a t e ki nds of ha r m – the num be rof

a l i e ns s he tr a ns por t e d a nd he rphy s i c a l r e s tr a i ntof O l i m pi a . N e i the rof the s e e nha nc e m e nt s c ont a i ne d a ha r m tha tw a s f ul l y t a ke n i nt o a c c ountby the othe r . F ur the r m or e , the f a c ttha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d G a r c i a a tthe hi gh e nd of the appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange do es no tm ea n thatG ar ci a’ s s ent ence w as e nha nc e d a ga i n. T he di s tr i c tc our tha s di s c r e t i on t o s e nt e nc e a ny w he r e w i thi n or o u ts id e th e ap p lic a b le g u id e lin e s r a n g e s o lo n g a s th a t s e n te n c e is r e a s o n a b le . W e not e , i n a ny e ve nt , tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e a s ons f ori m pos i ng a s e nt e nc e a tthe hi gh e nd of

the r a nge , na m e l y tha tG a r c i a ha d “ pr e y e d” on vul ne r a bl e i l l e ga l a l i e ns a nd tr e a t e d both O l i m pi a a nd he rm othe rc rue l l y , w e r e notf ul l y t a ke n i nt o a c c ount a s p a r t o f e ith e rg u id e lin e s e n h a n c e m e n t.

I I I . CONCL US I ON F orthe s e r e a s ons , w e a f f i r m G a r c i a ’ s 21- m onth s e nt e nc e a nd S a nt i a go’ s 17- m on th sent ence . AF F I RME D.