FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 9, 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. 06- 13466 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 1 2 9 - 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 V I C T O R M A N U E L L E M O S V A S Q 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 9, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O n D e c e m be r5, 2005, the U . S . C oa s tG ua r d boa r de d a f i s hi ng ve s s e l i n theAppellant wa s to be paid $4000, $2000 of whic h he had already rec eived, f

or assisting 1 in the transportation of the coc aine. 2 P a c i f i c O c e a n, 175 m i l e s s outhw e s tof C os t a R i c a , a nd s e i z e d 3500 pounds of c oc a i ne tha tw e r e hi dde n i n a f a l s e c om pa r tm e nton the ve s s e l . T he c apt a i n a nd f ourothe r s , i nc l udi ng appe l l a nt , w ho s e r ve d a s the ve s s e l ’ s c r e w , w e r e aboa r d. 1 O n D e c e m be r14, 2005, a M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da gr a nd j ury r e turne d a tw o- c ounti ndi c tm e nta ga i ns tappe l l a nta nd the othe r s aboa r d the ve s s e l c ha r gi ng the m , i n C ountO ne , w i th pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s or m ore of c ocai ne w hi l e on b oard a ves se l subj ec tt o the j uri sdi ct i on of the U ni t ed S t at es , 46 A pp endi x, U . S . C . §§ 19 03 (a ), 19 03 (g), and 2 1 U . S . C . § 9 60 (b)( 1)(B )( i i ), a nd, i n C ountT w o, w i th c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of

c oc a i ne w hi l e on boa 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 A ppe ndi x, U . S . C . §§ 1903( a ) , 1903( g) , 1903( j ) , a nd 21 U . S . C . § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) . O n M a r c h 16, 2006, appe l l a nt , ha vi ng e nt e r e d i nt o a pl e a a gr e e m e ntw i th the G ove rnm e nt , pl e a d gui l ty t o both c ount s , a nd on J une 12, 2 0 0 6 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d h im to c o n c u rr e n t p r is o n te r m s o f 1 3 5 m o n th s . H e now appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e s , c ont e ndi ng tha t , i n de t e r m i ni ng the s e nt e nc e r a nge u n d e rth e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in r e f u s in g to r e d u c e h is offe nse l evel by tw o l evel s pursuantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2(b). T he S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s pr ovi de f ora dow nw a r d a dj us tm e ntof the3

offe nse l evel “ for adefe nd antw ho pl ay s aparti n com m i tt i ng the offens e that m a k e s h i m s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s c u l p ab l e th a n th e a v e r a g e p a r t i c i p a n t . ” U. S . S . G. § 3 B 1. 2, com m ent . (n. 3) (200 5). A defe nd anti s gra nt ed a tw o-l evel adj ustm entas a m i n o r p art i ci p an ti f h e “ i s l ess cu l p ab l e th an m o sto th er p art i ci p an t s, b u tw h o se r ol e c oul d notbe de s c r i be d a s m i ni m a l . ” U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2, c om m e nt . ( n. 5) (200 5). A defe nd antbear s the bu rden of prov i ng a m i t i gat i ng rol e i n the offens e, by a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e . I d. a t939. W e ha ve i ns truc t e d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tf

i r s t“ m e a s ur e [ s ] the de f e nda nt ’ s r ol e a ga i ns tthe r e l e va ntc onduc tf or w hi ch [ ] he w as hel d acc ou nt abl e a tse nt enci ng , ” then, i f thati s notdi sposi t i ve,

“ the di stri ctcourtm ay al so m ea sure the defendant ’ s r ol e a gai nstthe ot her p art i ci p an t s . . . i n th atrel ev an tco n d u ct . ” Id . at9 4 5 . T h e d efen d an t ’ s st atu s as a d ru g co u rierd o es n o t alt erth is an alys is. Id . at 9 4 2 -4 3 . T h e a m o u n t o f d ru g s is “a m a te r ia l c o n s id e r a tio n in a s s e s s in g a d e f e n d a n t’s r o le in [ h is ] r e le v a n t c o n d u c t,” a nd “ the G ui de l i ne s e xpl i c i t l y r e c ogni z e tha ta m ountof drugs m a y be de t e r m i na t i ve i n the c ont e xtof m i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nt s . ” I d. a t943. A p p el l an tfai l ed t o sat i sfy h i s b u rd en o f sh o w i n g th ath e p l ayed a l ess si gn i fi ca ntof a r ol e i n tra ff i cki ng the cocai ne than atl ea stthe tw o o ther c re w m e m be r s w ho w e r e i ndi c t e d a s c ode f e nda nt s . T hus , a s a c r e w m e m be ron the v e s s e l, h is r o le in tr a n s p o r tin g th e d ru g s w a s in d is tin g u is h ab le f r o m tw o o f

h is4

c ode f e nda nt s ’ r ol e s , a nd he c a nnotbe s a i d t o be a ny l e s s c ul pabl e . T he r e f or e , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rrby re fusi ng t o reduce hi s off ense l evel un der § 3 B 1 .1 ( 2 ) b ) . A pp el l antcont ends thathi s s ent ence s a re un re as on abl e bec ause the court m i s c a l c ul a t e d the s e nt e nc e r a nge unde rthe G ui de l i ne s . W e f i nd no e rr ori n the c o u r t’s c a lc u la tio n . A n d w e f in d n o th in g in th e r e c o r d to s u p p o r t h is c la im th a t h is s e nt e nc e s a r e unr e a s onabl e . W he the ra s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e turns on the c our t ’ s c ons i de r a t i on of the purpos e s of

s e nt e nc i ng tha ta r e s pe l l e d outi n 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . U ni t ed S t at es v. W i l l i am s, 43 5 F . 3d 13 50 , 13 53 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e r e c o r d d is c lo s e s th a t th e c o u r t p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d th o s e p u rp o s e s in fash i o n i n g ap p el l an t ’ s sen t en ces. AF F I RME D.