FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT DECEMBER 13, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Ho no ra blePa sc o M . B owman II , Unite d St ate s Circuit Judg efo r t

heEi ghth Circuit , * sitti ngby designation. [ 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- 17155

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 0 6 0 0 - C R - P AS 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 R O M A N R O D R I G U E Z , a .k .a . R o m a n P a s to rR o d r ig u 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 13, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d B O W M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * P E R C U R I A M:2

R om an P . R od ri gu ez appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on and 1 20 -m on th sent ence im p o s e d a f

te rp le a d in g g u ilty to c o n s p ir a c y a n d a tte m p t to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e f

i ve orm or e ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 846 a nd 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) . S p e c if ic a lly , R o d r ig u e z c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in note ns ur i ng tha tthe r e w a s a n a de qua t e f a c tua l ba s i s f

orhi s gui l ty pl e a a nd i n not ap p ly in g a s a f

e ty - v a lv e r e d u c tio n to h is s e n te n c e . A f te rr e v ie w a n d o r a l a r g u m e n t, w e a f f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A ft era f eder al grand j ury i nd i ct ed R od ri gu ez , he ul t i m at el y a gree d t o p l ea d gu i l ty t o b oth cou nt s pursuantt o a w ri tt en pl eaagre em ent . A tthe change-of-pl ea he a r i ng, the gove rnm e nta nd R odr i gue z e nt e r e d i nt o a w r i tt e n f a c tua l pr of

f e rf or entryof the gu i l ty pl ea . T he fa ctual st i pu l at i on , w hi ch w as si gn ed by R od ri gu ez an d h i s co u n sel , p ro v i d ed as fo l l o w s:

1 . O n J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , Ro ma n Ro d r i g u e z a rr i v e d a tM i a mi Int ernat i on al A i rporti n M i am i -D ade C ou nty, F l ori da aboard A m er i ca n A i rl i nes f

l i gh t#2 38 6 from N ew Y ork. O n Jun e 28, 20 05 , at approx i m at el y 11: 20 a. m . , R om an R od ri gu ez and ano ther [ si c] m et w i th a n U nde r c ove rO f

f i c e r( he r e i na f

t e r“ U / C ” ) , i n M i a m i - D a de C o u n ty , F lo r id a . D u r in g th is m e e tin g , R o m a n R o d r ig u e z a n d th e U /C n e g o t i a t e d th e d e t a i l s o f th e p u r c h a s e o f

mo r e th a n f

i v e ( 5 ) k i l o g r a ms o f co cai n e fro m th e U / C . R o m an R o d ri g u ez ag reed t o p u rch ase appr oxi m a t e l y 20 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne f

r om the U / C a ta pr i c e of $1 8, 00 0 U . S . per ki l og ra m . R om an R od ri gu ez st at ed thathe w as in te r e s te d in p u r c h a s in g th e c o c a in e th a t w o u ld b e tr a n s p o r te d a n d s o ld i n the N e w Y or k a r e a . R om a n R odr i gue z f ur the rs t a t e d tha the ha d a3

dr i ve rw ho c oul d tr a ns por tf utur e de l i ve r i e s of

c oc a i ne , butw a nt e d the U /C to p r o v id e th e tr a n s p o r ta tio n to N e w Y o r k f o rth e f ir s t s h ip m e n t. T hi s m e e t i ng w a s a udi o r e c or de d. 2. D uri ng a s ub se qu entconv er sa t i on , R om an R od ri gu ez agre ed to u s e h is tr a n s p o r ta tio n a n d to r e tu rn to M ia m i o n ala te rd a te to com pl et e the i ni t i al tra nsac t i on of cocai ne. 3. O n J ul y 11, 2005, R om a n R odr i gue z a rr i ve d i n M i a m i t o t a ke pos s e s s i on of

the tw e nty ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne . R om a n R odr i gue z a nd the U / C m eti n the M i am i ar eaatw hi ch t i m e R om an R od ri gu ez s how e d the U / C appr oxi m a t e l y $20, 000 U . S . a s a dow n pa y m e nt t ow ar d the pu rc hase of the 20 ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne. 4. T he U / C then d rove R om an R od ri gu ez F ernand ez [s i c] t o an [s i c] w ar ehou se i n C oral G abl es . A tthatl ocat i on , the U / C show ed R om a n R odr i gue z a ba g c ont a i ni ng w ha tw a s r e pr e s e nt e d a s 20 ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne (19 k i l og ra m s of s ham coca i ne and o ne ki l og ra m of fi el d-t es t ed cocai ne). R om an R od ri gu ez hand l ed on e of the sham ki l ogr a m s a nd the ki l ogr a m of c oc a i ne . R om a n R odr i gue z a s ke d the U / C for akn i fe w i th w hi ch t o cuti nt o the ki l og ra m of cocai ne. A tthat t i m e, R om an R od ri gu ez w as t aken i nt o cust od y. T hi s tra nsac t i on w as vi de o a nd a udi o t ape d. T he di s tr i c tc our te xpl a i ne d the c ha r ge s a ga i ns tR odr i gue z a nd the gove rnm e nt ’ s bur de n of pr oof . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the c our tnot e d tha tthe gove rnm e nt w oul d ha ve t o pr ove : ( 1) tha ttw o orm or e pe opl e a gr e e d t o a pl a n t o pos s e s s f i ve orm or e ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne ; ( 2) tha tR odr i gue z i nt e nde d t o e nt e rthe pl a n; a nd ( 3) th a t R o d r ig u e z w a s w o r k in g w ith s o m e o n e e ls e to m a k e th e p la n s u c c e e d . W ith the as si st ance of an i nt erpret er , R od ri gu ez confi rm ed thatthe fa ctual proffe r w as ac cura t e a nd thathe un ders t oo d the charges agai nsthi m . R od ri gu ez al so i nd i ca t ed tha the ha d di s c us s e d the c ha r ge s a nd pos s i bl e de f e ns e s w i th hi s c ouns e l , a nd he expres se d h i s des i re t o acc eptre spon si bi l i ty f or hi s a ct i on s. T he di stri ctcourtthen4

a c c e p te d h is g u ilty p le a . A ts e nt e nc i ng, R odr i gue z a r gue d tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o a s a f e ty - va l ve r e duc t i on pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2( a ) be c a us e he pr ovi de d the gove rnm e nt w i th al l avai l abl e i nform at i on re l evantt o the offens e. T he di stri ctcourthel d an e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g to d e te r m in e w h e th e rR o d r ig u e z p r o v id e d a ll in f o r m a tio n . T he go vernm entpres ent ed the t es t i m on y of D rug E nforcement A gency S p e c ia l A g e n t J u lis s a M o n z o n , w h o w a s p r e s e n t a t R o d r ig u e z ’s d e b r ie f in g . M onz on t e s t i f

i e d tha tR odr i gue z i de nt i f i e d a m a n na m e d “ J oe l ” a s the pe r s on w ho i n tr o d u c e d h i m t o th e tr a n s p o r t e r . Al th o u g h R o d r i g u e z s t a t e d th a th e h a d k n o wn J o e l f o rs e v e r a l y e a r s , R o d r ig u e z c la im e d h e d id n o t k n o w h is la s t n a m e . A c c or di ng t o M onz on, R odr i gue z a l s o c ont e nde d tha the di d notknow the tr a ns por t e r ’ s na m e , e ve n though a uthor i t i e s l e a rne d tha tR odr i gue z ha d s ha r e d a m o te l r o o m w ith th e tr a n s p o r te r ’s w if e p r io rto h is a rr e s t. B a s e d upon thi s t e s t i m ony , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tR odr i gue z ha d not been forthcom i ng w i th al l i nform at i on and d eni ed sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef . T he di stri ct courtdet erm i ned thatR od ri gu ez had an o ff ense l evel of 31 and a cri m i nal hi st ory cat eg o ry o f I, w h i ch resu l t ed i n an ad v i so ry g u i d el i n es ran g e o f 1 0 8 t o 1 3 8 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm ent . A ft erre j ec t i ng the sa fe ty- val ve re du ct i on , the di stri ctcourt i m pos e d the m a nda t ory - m i ni m um s e nt e nc e of 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e ntunde r21When a de fendant h a s n ot challeng e d th efac tual ba sisof hisguilty ple a in distri c t c ourt , 1 we review f

or plain er

ror. United States v. Monroe, 353 F .3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003). To establish plain error, Rodriguez must show a rea sonable proba bility that, but for the error , he would not have entere d the plea. SeeUnited States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S. Ct . 2333, 2340 (2004). 5 U . S . C . § 8 41 (b)( 1)(A )( i i ), fi ve ye ar s of s up ervi se d rel ea se , and $ 18 , 00 0 i n cri m i nal f or f e i tur e . T hi s appe a l f

ol l ow e d.I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . A d eq u ate F actu al B asi s f or th e G u i l ty P l ea O n appe a l , R odr i gue z a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpl a i nl y e rr e d unde rF e d. R . C r i m . P . 11 by f

a i l i ng t o e ns ur e tha tthe r e w a s a n a de qua t e f a c tua l ba s i s f

orthe conspi ra cychar ge before a cc ept i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea . S peci fi ca l l y, R od ri gu ez 1 c o n te n d s th a t th e f

a c tu a l p r o f

f e rd id n o t s u p p o r t th e c o n s p ir a c y c h a r g e b e c a u s e it di d note s t abl i s h tha tthe r e w a s a n unl a w f ul a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n R odr i gue z a nd a n o n - g o v e rn m e n t a g e n t. I n or de rt o e s t abl i s h R odr i gue z ’ s c ons pi r a c y c onvi c t i on, the gove rnm e nt had t o p rove the exi st ence of an agree m entbetw ee n tw o o r m ore peopl e. S ee U n ite d S ta te s v . S im p s o n , 2 2 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . “I f th e r e a r e o n ly tw o m e m be r s of

a c ons pi r a c y , ne i the rm a y be a gove rnm e nta ge ntori nf or m a nt w ho a i m s t o f

rus tr a t e the c ons pi r a c y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A rba ne , 446 F . 3d 1223, 1228 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . T he e xi s t e nc e of a n a gr e e m e ntm a y be i nf e rr e d f r om theEv en if thefac tual prof

fer h a d b e en in a de qu ate , Ro drigue z ha s n ot s ho wn a re a so na ble 2 probability

that he would not haveentered a guilty plea a bsent the er

ror. 6 de f e nda nt ’ s c onduc torf

r om c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e of a s c he m e . I d. A tthe pl e a c ol l oquy , the di s tr i c tc our ti nf or m e d R odr i gue z tha tthe g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld h a v e to p r o v e th a t tw o o rm o r e p e o p le e n te r e d in to a p la n to po ss es s f i ve or m ore ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne. R od ri gu ez st i pu l at ed t o the w ri tt en f a c tua l pr of

f e r , w hi c h pr ovi de d, “ R om a n R odr i gue z f ur the rs t a t e d tha the ha d a dr i ve rw ho c oul d tr a ns por tf utur e de l i ve r i e s of

c oc a i ne . . . . D ur i ng a s ubs e que nt c o n v e r s a tio n , R o m a n R o d r ig u e z a g r e e d to u s e h is tr a n s p o r ta tio n a n d to r e tu rn to M i am i on a l at erdat e t o com pl et e the i ni t i al tra nsac t i on of cocai ne. ” R odr i gue z ’ s c l a i m tha tthe gove rnm e ntdi d noti de nt i f y a nothe rpe r s on i nv ol ved i n the conspi ra cybesi des the un derc ov eroffi ce r i s bel i ed by the st i pu l at ed f a c t s . I n the f

a c tua l pr of

f e r , R odr i gue z e xpr e s s l y a dm i tt e d tha the ha d a dr i ve rw ho w o u ld tr a n s p o r t th e c o c a in e a n d th a t R o d r ig u e z w o u ld u s e h is tr a n s p o r ta tio n to c om pl e t e the i ni t i a l tr a ns a c t i on. T hi s a dm i s s i on i s s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h the exi st ence of atl ea sttw o con spi ra t ors. A cc ordi ng l y, there w as an adequat e f ac tual b a s is f o rR o d r ig u e z ’s g u ilty p le a . I n a n y e v e n t, R o d r ig u e z c a n n o t s h o w p la in 2 erro r, an d w e affi rm h i s co n v i ct i o n s. B . S af e t y - V al ve R e d u c t i on R odr i gue z a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng s a f e ty - va l ve“When reviewinga district cour t’s safety-valvedecision, wereview for c lear error a 3 district court’s factual determinations . . . [ and] de novo the cour t’s leg al interpretation of the statutes and sentencingguidelines.” SeeUnited States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295, 1297 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (quotation mar

ks and citation omitted). 7 r e lie f u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( f ) a n d U .S .S .G . § 5 C 1 .2 ( a ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s o le 3 ba s i s f orde ny i ng a r e duc t i on unde r§ 3553( f ) w a s a f i ndi ng tha tR odr i gue z ha d not p ro v i d ed al l i n fo rm at i o n co n cern i n g h i s d ru g co n sp i racy.

“ S af ety- val ve re l i ef

al l ow s f or se nt enci ng w i tho utre gard t o any st atut ory m i ni m um , w i th res pectt o cert ai n o ff ense s, w hen speci fi c r equi re m ent s a re m et . ” Se e U n i t e d St a t e s v . Br e h m, 4 4 2 F. 3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 9 ( 1 1 th Ci r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , __U . S.

__, 127 S . C t . 457 ( 2006) . T he pa r t i e s di s put e w he the rR odr i gue z s a t i s f i e d § 3553( f ) ( 5) , w hi c h r e qui r e s tha t“ notl a t e rtha n the t i m e of the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the de f e nda ntha s truthf

ul l y pr ovi de d t o the G ove rnm e nta l l i nf or m a t i on a nd e vi de nc e the de f

e nda ntha s c onc e rni ng the of f e ns e orof

f e ns e s tha tw e r e pa r tof

the s a m e c o u r s e o f

c o n d u c t o ro f

a c o m m o n s c h e m e o rp la n . . . .” S e e a ls o U .S .S .G . § 5C 1. 2( a ) ( 5) . T hi s f

a c t ori s c ons i de r e d a “ t e l l - a l l pr ovi s i on” i n w hi c h the de f e nda nt “h a s a n a f

f irm a tiv e r e s p o n s ib ility to tru th f u lly d is c lo s e to th e g o v e rn m e n t a ll i nform at i on and evi dence thathe has abo utthe offens e a nd al l re l evantcond uct . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J ohns on, 375 F . 3d 1300, 1302 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . R o d r ig u e z b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t h e h a s m e t a ll c ondi t i ons f

orthe s a f e ty - va l ve r e duc t i on. S e e i d.Th esentenc ingguide lin e s de fine“ of fens eor of fens e s th at w erepa

rt of thesamec ours e 4 of conduc t or of a c ommon scheme or pla n,” as use d in § 5C1.2(a)(5) , to mean “theoffense of conviction and all releva

nt conduct.” SeeU.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 cmt. n.3.

8 R o d r ig u e z c o n te n d s th a t h e s a tis f ie d§ 3 5 5 3 ( f

) ( 5 ) b y r e v e a lin g a ll in f o r m a tio n ab o u t th e o f

f e n s e o f c o n v ic tio n b e c a u s e th e b r o a d e rr e q u ir e m e n t to r e ve a l “ a l l r e l e va ntc onduc t ” pr e da t e d U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 4 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . A s e nt e nc i ng c our tunde rB ooke rs t i l l m us tc ons i de rthe g u i d e l i n e s , h o w e v e r , a n d c o rr e c t l y c a l c u l a t e th e g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e i n th e s a me m a nne ra s the gui de l i ne s w e r e i nt e rpr e t e d be f or e B ooke r . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ra w ford, 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 78 -79 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ); se e a l so B re hm , 44 2 F . 3d at 1300 ( “ B ooke rdoe s notr e nde rappl i c a t i on of i ndi vi dua l gui de l i ne pr ovi s i ons a dvi s ory be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tr e m a i ns obl i ga t e d c orr e c t l y t o c a l c ul a t e the G u id e lin e s r a n g e . . . .” ) . P o s t- B o o k e r , w e c o n tin u e to r e q u ir e d e f e n d a n ts to p ro v i d e i n fo rm at i o n o n al l co n d u ctrel ev an tt o th e o ffen se t o q u al i fy fo r a safetyva l ve r e duc t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l ki nt a s , __ F . 3d __, N o. 05- 13256, 2006 W L 3 4 3 1 8 7 5 , a t * 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . N o v . 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( n o tin g th a t s a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

is a v a ilab le o n ly if

d e f e n d a n ts s a tis f

y th e irb u r d e n o f

“c o m in g f

o rw a r d w ith a ll in f o r m a tio n in [ th e ir ] p o s s e s s io n th a t w a s r e le v a n t to th e c r im in a l e n te rp r is e ” ) . I n f o r m a tio n ab o u t th e id e n tity o f R o d r ig u e z ’s d r iv e ris d ir e c tly r e la te d to h is o ffen se. W h en th e o ffen se i s co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w i th i n t en tt o d i stri b u t e d ru g s,9

th e s c o p e o f

in f o r m a tio n th a t m u s t b e d is c lo s e d in c lu d e s “in f o r m a tio n r e la tin g to th e in v o lv e m e n t o f

o th e r s a n d to th e c h a in o f th e n a r c o tic s d is tr ib u tio n .” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. C ruz , 106 F . 3d 1553, 1557 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . R odr i gue z s t i pul a t e d i n the f a c tua l pr of

f e rtha t“ he ha d a dr i ve rw ho c oul d tr a ns por tf utur e de l i ve r i e s of coca i ne. ” R od ri gu ez cl ai m ed thathe di d n otkn ow the i dent i ty of thi s tra nspo rt er , b u t M o n zo n testified th at R o d rig u ez sh ar ed a m o tel ro o m w ith th e tra n sp o rter ’s w i f e . M onz on a l s o t e s t i f

i e d tha tR odr i gue z di d notpr ovi de the l a s tna m e or t el epho ne nu m ber f

or “ Joel , ” the m an w ho i ntrodu ce d h i m t o the tra nspo rt er , despi t e bei ng fr i ends w i th “ Joel ” f or se vera l ye ar s. In l i gh tof thi s uncon tra di ct ed te s tim o n y , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e a s o n ab ly c o n c lu d e d th a t R o d r ig u e z h a d n o t m e t h is b u r d e n to r e v e a l a ll in f

o r m a tio n r e la tin g to th e in v o lv e m e n t o f c o - c o n s p ir a to r s . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n de ny i ng sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

. I I I . CONCL US I ON F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e a ff i rm R od ri gu ez ’ s c on vi ct i on s a nd se nt ence . AF F I RME D.