FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 7, 2005 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. 04- 11700 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 4 2 8 - C R - T - 2 6 - T GW 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 J O S E M A N U E L C A B E Z A 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

_________________________ ( J une 7, 2005) B e f o r e A N D E R S O N , H U L L a n d W I L S O N , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: J os e M a nue l C abe z a s appe a l s hi s 135- m onth s e nt e nc e a nd c onvi c t i on f or pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 5 orm or e gr a m s of c oc a i ne i n vi ol a t i on of

21Be causeBooker wa s decide d after brief ing in this ca se wa s completed, we 1 re qu e ste d a

nd re c e ive d s upplemental brie fingon Ca be zas ' B oo ker c laim. 2 U . S . C . § 9 60 (b)( 1)(B )( i i ) a nd the M ar i t i m e D rug L aw E nforcement A ct(M D L E A ), 46 U . S . C . A pp . § 1 90 3. F i rs t , C abez as ar gu es thatthe se nt enci ng j ud ge com m i tt ed pl a i n e rr orby c ons i de r i ng the F e de r a l G ui de l i ne s t o be m a nda t ory a nd m a ki ng enhancem ent s bas ed on j ud i ci al fa ct -f i nd i ng i n l i gh tof U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ). S ec on d, he ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d w he n i te nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e unde rU . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 2) ( B ) f orbe i ng a “c ap ta in ” o f

th e d ru g - c a rry in g v e s s e l. L a s tly , C ab e z a s a r g u e s th a t th e M D L E A is unc ons t i tut i ona l unde rA ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348, 147 L . E d. 2d 435 ( 2000, ) be c a us e i ti nc orpor a t e s by r e f e r e nc e the pe na l ty pr ovi s i ons of 21 U . S . C . § 9 60 and al l ow s aj ud ge t o d ec i de “ se nt enci ng fa ct ors” thatar e m ore p r o p e r ly s u b m itte d to a ju ry . I . C ab e z as ’ B ook e r C h al l e n ge C abez as fa i l ed t o o bj ec tt o j ud i ci al fa ct -f i nd i ng used t o enh ance hi s s ent ence or t o the m andat ory app l i ca t i on of the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes i n the di stri ctcourt . In h is in itia l b r ie f

o n ap p e a l, C ab e z a s a lle g e d th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a l in l i ghtof the S upr e m e C our t ’ s opi ni on i n B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . ___, 124 S . C t . 25 31 , 15 9 L . E d. 2d 40 3 (20 04 ). A cc ordi ng l y, w e r evi ew for pl ai n err or. S ee 1 U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ow l i ng, 403 F . 3d 1242, 1245- 47 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( e xpl a i ni ng3

w ha ti s r e qui r e d t o pr e s e rve a B ooke re rr ora nd r e vi e w i ng the de f e nda nt ’ s c l a i m f

or p la in e rr o rb e c a u s e it w a s f ir s t r a is e d in th e in itia l b r ie f o n ap p e a l) . W e have di sc re t i on t o correc tan error und erthe pl ai n err or st andard w here (1) a n err or occurre d, (2) the error w as pl ai n, (3) the error a ff ec t ed subst ant i al r i ght s , a nd ( 4) the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty orpubl i c r e put a t i on o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . U n ite d S ta te s v . O la n o , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 - 3 6 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 1 7 7 0 , 1 7 7 7 - 7 9 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . I n U n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 2 U . S. __ , 1 2 5 S. Ct . 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , th e Su p r e me C ou rtanno un ce d thatse nt enci ng enhancem ent s m ade pursuantt o m andat ory F e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a nd ba s e d on j udi c i a l l y f ound f a c t s vi ol a t e d the S i xth A m endm ent . Id. at___, 12 5 S . C t . at74 7-50 . A cc ordi ng l y, the C ou rtstruck the s t a tut e pr ovi s i ons m a ki ng the F e de r a l S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s m a nda t ory , a nd r e n d e r e d th e g u id e lin e s e f f e c tiv e ly a d v is o ry . I d . a t _

__ , 1 2 5 S .C t a t 7 5 6 - 5 7 . In U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), w e app l i ed pl a i n e rr ora na l y s i s t o ac l a i m tha tthe de f e nda nt ' s s e nt e nc e vi ol a t e d hi s F i f th a nd S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts in lig h t o f B o o k e r . T h e R o d r ig u e z o p in io n s ta te d th a t a s e n te n c e e n h a n c e m e n t b a s e d o n af a c t, o th e rth a n a p r io rc o n v ic tio n , f o u n d s o le ly by the j udge i n am a nda t ory gui de l i ne s y s t e m m e tthe f i r s ta nd s e c ond pr ongs of th e p la in e rr o rte s t. I d . a t 1 2 9 8 - 9 9 . A p p ly in g th e th ir d p r o n g , th e c o u r t in4

R odr i gue z the n a s ke d " [ w ] he the rthe r e i s a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty of a di f f e r e nt r e s ul ti f the gui de l i ne s ha d be e n appl i e d i n a n a dvi s ory i ns t e a d of bi ndi ng f

a s hi on by the s e nt e nc i ng j udge i n thi s c a s e . " I d. a t1301. E m pha s i z i ng tha tthe de f e nda nt bo re the bu rden of persuas i on w i th res pectt o p re j ud i ce , the courti n R od ri gu ez f ound tha tthe de f

e nda ntc oul d notm e e thi s bur de n be c a us e the r e c or d pr ovi de d no i nd i ca t i on thatadvi sorygu i del i nes w ou l d h ave r es ul t ed i n a l es se r s ent ence . Id. at 1 3 0 1 . S i m i l a r l y , C abe z a s c a nnots how tha thi s s e nt e nc e w oul d be a ny l ow e ri f the j ud ge un ders t oo d the gu i del i nes t o b e a dv i soryra ther than m andat ory. C abez as a r gue s tha tbe c a us e he w a s s e nt e nc e d a tthe l ow e s te nd of the gui de l i ne s r a nge a nd b e c a u s e th e ju d g e r e f

u s e d to d e p a r t d o w n w a r d in o r d e rto a c h ie v e s e n te n c in g p a r ity w i th h i s c o-defendant s, he has m ethi s burden and dem on stra t ed thatthe m andat ory gui de l i ne s r e s ul t e d i n a n i nc r e a s e d s e nt e nc e . H ow e ve r , i ts i m pl y doe s notf ol l ow tha taj udge ’ s r e f

us a l t o de pa r tdow nw a r d ba s e d on s e nt e nc i ng pa r i ty s om e how i nd i ca t es a r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty thatthe j ud ge w ou l d d eparti n an adv i sory r e g im e . A s e n te n c e a t th e lo w e s t e n d o f th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e , b y its e lf , is i nsuffi ci entt o d em on stra t e are as on abl e probabi l i ty thatthe j ud ge w ou l d d epart fro m th e g u i d el i n es al t o g eth er i n an ad v i so ry syst em . S ee U n i t ed S t at es v . F i el d s, __F . 3d__, 2005 W L 1131778 a t*4 ( 11th C i r . M a y 16, 2005) ( “ W e a gr e e w i th the5

F i rs t , F ou rth, F i fth, and E i gh th C i rc ui t s thatthe fa ctthatthe di stri ctcourt s e nt e nc e d the de f

e nda ntt o the bott om of

the appl i c abl e gui de l i ne s r a nge e s t abl i s he s onl y tha tthe c our tf e l ttha ts e nt e nc e w a s appr opr i a t e unde rthe m a nda t ory gui de l i ne s s y s t e m . I tdoe s note s t abl i s h a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha tthe co u rtw o u l d h av e i m p o sed a l esser sen t en ce u n d er an ad v i so ry reg i m e. ”). T h u s, C abe z a s c a nnots a t i s f

y the thi r d pr ong of

the pl a i n e rr ort e s tbe c a us e he c a nnot s h o w th a t th e B o o k e re rr o ra f f e c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . I I . C a be z a s ’ s C ha l l e ng e t o Be i ng Fo und a “ C a pt a i n” C abe z a s a r gue s tha the w a s a c apt a i n i n na m e onl y , noti n the f unc t i ons he ac tual l y per form ed on the bo at , m aki ng the se nt enci ng court ’ s e nh ance m entun der U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(b)(2)(B) i napp ropri at e. W e r evi ew “ a di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng s of f

ac tfor c l ea r e rr or. ” U ni t ed S t at es v . R e n d o n , 3 5 4 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . U n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 . 1 (b )(2 )(B ), a d efen d an t ’ s sen t en ce i s i n creased tw o l ev el s i f h e “ act ed as a pi l ot , copi l ot , capt ai n, navi gat or, fl i gh toffi ce r, or any other operat i on offi ce r ab o a r d a n y c r a f

t o rv e s s e l.” T h e g u id e lin e s d o n o t d e f in e “c ap ta in ,” a lth o u g h in R e n d o n w e n o te d th a t d e c is io n s in te rp r e tin g it h a v e “d e c lin e d to a d o p t ar ig id defi ni t i on . ” R endo n, 35 4 F . 3d at13 29 . W e a l so ci t ed tw o d ec i si on s f rom other ci rc ui t s hol di ng thata def endantneed on l y “ ac tas ” acapt ai n t o w arra ntan6

e nha nc e m e nt , a nd ne e d notpos s e s s a ny “ s pe c i a l na vi ga t i ona l r a nk ors ki l l s . ” I d. (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). T he e vi de nc e s how e d tha tC abe z a s ha d be e n s e rvi ng a s the c apt a i n of s hi ps s in c e h e w a s 2 6 , a d m itte d h e r e c ru ite d th e p e r s o n n e l, s le p t in o n e o f th e tw o s ta te r oom s , a nd i ni t i a l l y t ol d the C oa s tG ua r d tha the w a s the c apt a i n, w e l l be f or e he tri ed t o rec antor expl ai n aw ayhi s s t at em ent . F urtherm ore, even i f “ navi gat i on al ran k o r sk i l l s” are n o treq u i red , C ab ezas’s ab i l i ty t o n av i g at e a sh i p , an d sk i l l s as a c ap ta in , w h e th e ro rn o t h e k n e w h o w to u s e a s o p h is tic a te d G P S d e v ic e , c o u ld o n ly s e rve t o bol s t e rthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s ul t i m a t e de t e rm i na t i on tha the w a s a “ c apt a i n” of the bo atw i thi n the m ea ni ng of § 2 D 1. 1(b)(2)(B).

I I I . C o ns t i t ut i o na l i t y o f t he M D LEA F i na l l y , C abe z a s a r gue s tha tthe pe na l ty pr ovi s i ons i n 21 U . S . C . § 960, referen ced b y th e M D L E A , are u n co n st i tu t i o n al u n d er A p p ren d i , an d b ecau se th o se prov i si on s a re no tse verabl e f rom the cr i m es they penal i ze , bo th C abez as ’ se nt ence a nd c onvi c t i on a r e voi d. H ow e ve r , C abe z a s w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o c ha l l e nge the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of

§ 960 a nd the M D L E A unde rA ppr e ndi be c a us e he un cond i t i on al l y pl ed gu i l ty t o the charge. W e ha ve he l d tha t“ [ a ] de f e nda nt ' s unc ondi t i ona l pl e aof gui l ty , m a de k n o w in g ly , v o lu n ta r ily , a n d w ith th e b e n e f it o f c o m p e te n t c o u n s e l, w a iv e s a ll7

non- j ur i s di c t i ona l de f

e c t s i n tha tde f

e nda nt ' s c our tpr oc e e di ngs . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P ie rr e , 1 2 0 F .3 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . F urtherm ore, w e have hel d that“ [A pp re nd i ] cl ai m s a re no tj uri sdi ct i on al . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . F o r d , 2 7 0 F .3 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . H e r e , the l y nc hpi n of

C abe z a s ’ c ons t i tut i ona l a r gum e nti s tha tA ppr e ndi ren d ers u n co n st i tu t i o n al th e p en al ty p ro v i si o n s o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 9 6 0 (b ). B ecau se A pp re nd i cl ai m s a re no tj uri sdi ct i on al , and C abez as ’ s uncon di t i on al gu i l ty pl ea w ai v ed h i s ri g h tt o ch al l en g e al l n o n -j u ri sd i ct i o n al d efect s, w e d ecl i n e t o ad d ress the m er i t s of hi s c hal l enge. Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we di s c e rn no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . A c c or di ngl y , C abe z a s ’ 135- m onth s e nt e nc e a nd conv i ct i on ar e AF F I RME D.